<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_1446219</id>
	<title>When Libertarians Attack Free Software</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256314560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>binarybits writes <i>'I've got a new article analyzing the unfortunate tendency of <a href="http://timothyblee.com/?p=1372">libertarian and free-market organizations to attack free software</a>. The latest example is a policy analyst at the Heartland Institute who attacks network neutrality regulations by arguing that advocates have 'unwittingly bought into' the 'radical agenda' of the free software movement. I argue that in reality, the free market and free software are entirely compatible, and libertarians are shooting themselves in the foot by antagonizing the free software movement.'</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>binarybits writes 'I 've got a new article analyzing the unfortunate tendency of libertarian and free-market organizations to attack free software .
The latest example is a policy analyst at the Heartland Institute who attacks network neutrality regulations by arguing that advocates have 'unwittingly bought into ' the 'radical agenda ' of the free software movement .
I argue that in reality , the free market and free software are entirely compatible , and libertarians are shooting themselves in the foot by antagonizing the free software movement .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>binarybits writes 'I've got a new article analyzing the unfortunate tendency of libertarian and free-market organizations to attack free software.
The latest example is a policy analyst at the Heartland Institute who attacks network neutrality regulations by arguing that advocates have 'unwittingly bought into' the 'radical agenda' of the free software movement.
I argue that in reality, the free market and free software are entirely compatible, and libertarians are shooting themselves in the foot by antagonizing the free software movement.
'</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851287</id>
	<title>Too long!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256290860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't condense your statements to one or two paragraphs (maybe three) your opinions are not worth my time to read them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't condense your statements to one or two paragraphs ( maybe three ) your opinions are not worth my time to read them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't condense your statements to one or two paragraphs (maybe three) your opinions are not worth my time to read them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859291</id>
	<title>Re:What's up with the attack on libertarians latel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256376120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regarding setting up a business, don't incorporate in California, even if you live here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding setting up a business , do n't incorporate in California , even if you live here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding setting up a business, don't incorporate in California, even if you live here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847843</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1256321460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I understand libertarianism</p></div><p>Don't worry, you don't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand libertarianismDo n't worry , you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand libertarianismDon't worry, you don't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849695</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256327940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ha, so libertarians want a Somalia out of USA. Good for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ha , so libertarians want a Somalia out of USA .
Good for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ha, so libertarians want a Somalia out of USA.
Good for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851297</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256290860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugs</i></p><p>OK, look, if you don't believe you should be able to ruin your life any way you want, how can you say you're for liberty? If you want to smoke crack why should I stop you? Now, if you steal from me to buy your dope, that's a different matter. The stealing should be illegal, not the dope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugsOK , look , if you do n't believe you should be able to ruin your life any way you want , how can you say you 're for liberty ?
If you want to smoke crack why should I stop you ?
Now , if you steal from me to buy your dope , that 's a different matter .
The stealing should be illegal , not the dope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugsOK, look, if you don't believe you should be able to ruin your life any way you want, how can you say you're for liberty?
If you want to smoke crack why should I stop you?
Now, if you steal from me to buy your dope, that's a different matter.
The stealing should be illegal, not the dope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455</id>
	<title>Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!</title>
	<author>digsbo</author>
	<datestamp>1256319900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased.  It is a violation of the property rights of the network owner.  This is unrelated to, and separate from, FOSS, in which the ownership is provided freely (which has some different meanings given the particular license/copyright).  Two different issues philosophically, and poorly understood in TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased .
It is a violation of the property rights of the network owner .
This is unrelated to , and separate from , FOSS , in which the ownership is provided freely ( which has some different meanings given the particular license/copyright ) .
Two different issues philosophically , and poorly understood in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased.
It is a violation of the property rights of the network owner.
This is unrelated to, and separate from, FOSS, in which the ownership is provided freely (which has some different meanings given the particular license/copyright).
Two different issues philosophically, and poorly understood in TFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849557</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarian that likes free software</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1256327460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism. It's the small guy capitalism.</p></div><p>Or rather, FOSS <b>stands in for</b> capitalism where the latter should be if the free market hadn't failed back in the 90s. FOSS probably fits the "libertarian-socialist" mold more closely than other isms: There is a lot of resource sharing and a tendency away from highly concentrated power.</p><p>Of course that has its downsides, too. What we need more than anything is a strongly democratic (and educated) society where a wide range of organizational principles ('isms') can mix and match as needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free software is n't socialism , it 's the new capitalism .
It 's the small guy capitalism.Or rather , FOSS stands in for capitalism where the latter should be if the free market had n't failed back in the 90s .
FOSS probably fits the " libertarian-socialist " mold more closely than other isms : There is a lot of resource sharing and a tendency away from highly concentrated power.Of course that has its downsides , too .
What we need more than anything is a strongly democratic ( and educated ) society where a wide range of organizational principles ( 'isms ' ) can mix and match as needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism.
It's the small guy capitalism.Or rather, FOSS stands in for capitalism where the latter should be if the free market hadn't failed back in the 90s.
FOSS probably fits the "libertarian-socialist" mold more closely than other isms: There is a lot of resource sharing and a tendency away from highly concentrated power.Of course that has its downsides, too.
What we need more than anything is a strongly democratic (and educated) society where a wide range of organizational principles ('isms') can mix and match as needed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29855649</id>
	<title>Why ?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1256389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would a movement whose whole ideal is non-interference with personal choice, be bothered to attack anything ? If I want to use free software, it's my business. You can't be a true libertarian and forcibly restrict other peoples choices. My using free software places no obligation on anybody else, so really I'm more of a libertarian in that respect than the libertarians ! They seem to believe you can only be free if you agree to pay for it. Freedom surely means not having to pay if you don't want to - at least that's the argument when it comes to healthcare and other aspects of government.<br> <br>This whole article is flamebait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would a movement whose whole ideal is non-interference with personal choice , be bothered to attack anything ?
If I want to use free software , it 's my business .
You ca n't be a true libertarian and forcibly restrict other peoples choices .
My using free software places no obligation on anybody else , so really I 'm more of a libertarian in that respect than the libertarians !
They seem to believe you can only be free if you agree to pay for it .
Freedom surely means not having to pay if you do n't want to - at least that 's the argument when it comes to healthcare and other aspects of government .
This whole article is flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would a movement whose whole ideal is non-interference with personal choice, be bothered to attack anything ?
If I want to use free software, it's my business.
You can't be a true libertarian and forcibly restrict other peoples choices.
My using free software places no obligation on anybody else, so really I'm more of a libertarian in that respect than the libertarians !
They seem to believe you can only be free if you agree to pay for it.
Freedom surely means not having to pay if you don't want to - at least that's the argument when it comes to healthcare and other aspects of government.
This whole article is flamebait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847943</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Thalaric</author>
	<datestamp>1256321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before I can take your question seriously you have to define "Libertarian political structure".</p><p>How about, how could a limited government with the help of academia and/or independant business interests create a network? For example, take 18th century new england turnpike construction or 19th century railroad networks and accompanying telegraph networks. I choose such an early example because you have to go that far back to find a small government.</p><p>Regarding the walled-garden, it's inevitable since the worth of the network is proportional to the number of people on it. Unless there's a monopoly force at work, at some stage all networks must to interconnect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I can take your question seriously you have to define " Libertarian political structure " .How about , how could a limited government with the help of academia and/or independant business interests create a network ?
For example , take 18th century new england turnpike construction or 19th century railroad networks and accompanying telegraph networks .
I choose such an early example because you have to go that far back to find a small government.Regarding the walled-garden , it 's inevitable since the worth of the network is proportional to the number of people on it .
Unless there 's a monopoly force at work , at some stage all networks must to interconnect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I can take your question seriously you have to define "Libertarian political structure".How about, how could a limited government with the help of academia and/or independant business interests create a network?
For example, take 18th century new england turnpike construction or 19th century railroad networks and accompanying telegraph networks.
I choose such an early example because you have to go that far back to find a small government.Regarding the walled-garden, it's inevitable since the worth of the network is proportional to the number of people on it.
Unless there's a monopoly force at work, at some stage all networks must to interconnect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849877</id>
	<title>Not libertarian</title>
	<author>pterandon</author>
	<datestamp>1256328780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't confuse an anti-communitarian, statist organization such as the Heartland Institute with actual libertarianism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse an anti-communitarian , statist organization such as the Heartland Institute with actual libertarianism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse an anti-communitarian, statist organization such as the Heartland Institute with actual libertarianism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848231</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must be lonely in your little world where someone has to give a 20 minute dissertation on a topic AND it has to match your biased world view before you will consider them worthy of discourse (where, of course, they would merely nod emphatically as you share your substantial -- and correct -- opinions on every subject on Slashdot).</p><p>From my perspective, the internet's growth has been an exemplary example of what minimal interference from government can achieve.  The internet has been, for the most part, market driven.  When standards were/are needed, players in the industry meet and agree (or not) on how they will interact without government intervention.  When some Rupert Murdoch makes a walled garden, an RMS steps up to make a free/libre version.  The internet-market regulates itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be lonely in your little world where someone has to give a 20 minute dissertation on a topic AND it has to match your biased world view before you will consider them worthy of discourse ( where , of course , they would merely nod emphatically as you share your substantial -- and correct -- opinions on every subject on Slashdot ) .From my perspective , the internet 's growth has been an exemplary example of what minimal interference from government can achieve .
The internet has been , for the most part , market driven .
When standards were/are needed , players in the industry meet and agree ( or not ) on how they will interact without government intervention .
When some Rupert Murdoch makes a walled garden , an RMS steps up to make a free/libre version .
The internet-market regulates itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be lonely in your little world where someone has to give a 20 minute dissertation on a topic AND it has to match your biased world view before you will consider them worthy of discourse (where, of course, they would merely nod emphatically as you share your substantial -- and correct -- opinions on every subject on Slashdot).From my perspective, the internet's growth has been an exemplary example of what minimal interference from government can achieve.
The internet has been, for the most part, market driven.
When standards were/are needed, players in the industry meet and agree (or not) on how they will interact without government intervention.
When some Rupert Murdoch makes a walled garden, an RMS steps up to make a free/libre version.
The internet-market regulates itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849979</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1256329140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Explain, in your own words, how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structure</i></p><p>You ever hear of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet" title="wikipedia.org">FIDO Net</a> [wikipedia.org]?  Or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uucp" title="wikipedia.org">UUCP</a> [wikipedia.org]?  Or for that matter <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenet" title="wikipedia.org">Telenet</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>Here is the story: there were plenty of network efforts both by volunteers over modems and corporations largely over X.25.  When I was in college, we had a Telenet connection to many other schools and a new-fanged "Internet" connection.  The idea of hooking up networks was not a unique concept, but it is true that TCP/IP protocol (largely government funded) was in the right place at the right time (although we almost went ATM).  There were several government-funded higher speed networks that took off at the same time that FIDO Net was linking the BBS world and UUCP was linking Unix boxes over modems.  But it took privately built networks (UUNET, DIGEX, PSI)  to bring the Internet to commercial businesses and non-university/non-military users.  Commercial traffic was actually banned from the government-funded networks at first.</p><p>I was an early employee of one of the first major nationwide DS-3 speed ISPs.  We never worried much about government regulation, because government had no real clue what we were doing.  We had porn servers.  We peered with whom we wanted to and under what circumstances we wanted to.  No "net neutrality".  And there were instances of peering conflict between networks, but eventually calm heads prevailed and the Internet survived intact.</p><p>I'll also give props to government-funded CERN for coming up with HTTP, and more importantly NCSA for coming up with the Mosaic web browser, but there was plenty of Internet going on (email, Usenet, Gopher, ftp, etc.) before the WWW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain , in your own words , how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structureYou ever hear of FIDO Net [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Or UUCP [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Or for that matter Telenet [ wikipedia.org ] ? Here is the story : there were plenty of network efforts both by volunteers over modems and corporations largely over X.25 .
When I was in college , we had a Telenet connection to many other schools and a new-fanged " Internet " connection .
The idea of hooking up networks was not a unique concept , but it is true that TCP/IP protocol ( largely government funded ) was in the right place at the right time ( although we almost went ATM ) .
There were several government-funded higher speed networks that took off at the same time that FIDO Net was linking the BBS world and UUCP was linking Unix boxes over modems .
But it took privately built networks ( UUNET , DIGEX , PSI ) to bring the Internet to commercial businesses and non-university/non-military users .
Commercial traffic was actually banned from the government-funded networks at first.I was an early employee of one of the first major nationwide DS-3 speed ISPs .
We never worried much about government regulation , because government had no real clue what we were doing .
We had porn servers .
We peered with whom we wanted to and under what circumstances we wanted to .
No " net neutrality " .
And there were instances of peering conflict between networks , but eventually calm heads prevailed and the Internet survived intact.I 'll also give props to government-funded CERN for coming up with HTTP , and more importantly NCSA for coming up with the Mosaic web browser , but there was plenty of Internet going on ( email , Usenet , Gopher , ftp , etc .
) before the WWW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain, in your own words, how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structureYou ever hear of FIDO Net [wikipedia.org]?
Or UUCP [wikipedia.org]?
Or for that matter Telenet [wikipedia.org]?Here is the story: there were plenty of network efforts both by volunteers over modems and corporations largely over X.25.
When I was in college, we had a Telenet connection to many other schools and a new-fanged "Internet" connection.
The idea of hooking up networks was not a unique concept, but it is true that TCP/IP protocol (largely government funded) was in the right place at the right time (although we almost went ATM).
There were several government-funded higher speed networks that took off at the same time that FIDO Net was linking the BBS world and UUCP was linking Unix boxes over modems.
But it took privately built networks (UUNET, DIGEX, PSI)  to bring the Internet to commercial businesses and non-university/non-military users.
Commercial traffic was actually banned from the government-funded networks at first.I was an early employee of one of the first major nationwide DS-3 speed ISPs.
We never worried much about government regulation, because government had no real clue what we were doing.
We had porn servers.
We peered with whom we wanted to and under what circumstances we wanted to.
No "net neutrality".
And there were instances of peering conflict between networks, but eventually calm heads prevailed and the Internet survived intact.I'll also give props to government-funded CERN for coming up with HTTP, and more importantly NCSA for coming up with the Mosaic web browser, but there was plenty of Internet going on (email, Usenet, Gopher, ftp, etc.
) before the WWW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854655</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>putnondritz</author>
	<datestamp>1256326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you should hop into Wells' machine and get back there, as that statement is completely non-sensical, to say the least. Humorous, and  jaw-dropping ignorant, but not correct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you should hop into Wells ' machine and get back there , as that statement is completely non-sensical , to say the least .
Humorous , and jaw-dropping ignorant , but not correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you should hop into Wells' machine and get back there, as that statement is completely non-sensical, to say the least.
Humorous, and  jaw-dropping ignorant, but not correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854923</id>
	<title>I'm member of a libertarian organization...</title>
	<author>jprupp</author>
	<datestamp>1256375640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I'm all for Free Software, and the dismantling of the Copyright and Patent systems, on \_libertarian\_ grounds.</p><p>Intellectual property is an aberration of free market economies. Since the free market is all about making a \_scarce\_ good be \_available\_. Not about making an abundant good be scarce.</p><p>Intellectual property laws \_require\_ government force to \_coerce\_ people and enterprises into not copying or implementing otherwise abundant information. It's as statist as it can be.</p><p>By the way, I'm an Austrian School libertarian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I 'm all for Free Software , and the dismantling of the Copyright and Patent systems , on \ _libertarian \ _ grounds.Intellectual property is an aberration of free market economies .
Since the free market is all about making a \ _scarce \ _ good be \ _available \ _ .
Not about making an abundant good be scarce.Intellectual property laws \ _require \ _ government force to \ _coerce \ _ people and enterprises into not copying or implementing otherwise abundant information .
It 's as statist as it can be.By the way , I 'm an Austrian School libertarian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I'm all for Free Software, and the dismantling of the Copyright and Patent systems, on \_libertarian\_ grounds.Intellectual property is an aberration of free market economies.
Since the free market is all about making a \_scarce\_ good be \_available\_.
Not about making an abundant good be scarce.Intellectual property laws \_require\_ government force to \_coerce\_ people and enterprises into not copying or implementing otherwise abundant information.
It's as statist as it can be.By the way, I'm an Austrian School libertarian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851767</id>
	<title>Incomplete Analysis</title>
	<author>TaleSpinner</author>
	<datestamp>1256292960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libertarian thought is not incompatible with open source, in fact it is incompatible with closed source, since libertarian thought is primarily concerned with protecting people's rights.  The problem comes with those who have not analyzed the subject deeply and jump to the conclusion that the rights that need protecting are not the consumers but the purveyors of software.  In the case of software this is deeply incorrect, open source software is, defensibly, the only really open market for software, any other version admits of using tricks to lock people into compartmentalized monopolies, which are anathema to libertarian thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarian thought is not incompatible with open source , in fact it is incompatible with closed source , since libertarian thought is primarily concerned with protecting people 's rights .
The problem comes with those who have not analyzed the subject deeply and jump to the conclusion that the rights that need protecting are not the consumers but the purveyors of software .
In the case of software this is deeply incorrect , open source software is , defensibly , the only really open market for software , any other version admits of using tricks to lock people into compartmentalized monopolies , which are anathema to libertarian thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarian thought is not incompatible with open source, in fact it is incompatible with closed source, since libertarian thought is primarily concerned with protecting people's rights.
The problem comes with those who have not analyzed the subject deeply and jump to the conclusion that the rights that need protecting are not the consumers but the purveyors of software.
In the case of software this is deeply incorrect, open source software is, defensibly, the only really open market for software, any other version admits of using tricks to lock people into compartmentalized monopolies, which are anathema to libertarian thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847265</id>
	<title>Re:"Heartland Institute"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be a libertarian.  </p><p>Then I turned 16.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be a libertarian .
Then I turned 16 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be a libertarian.
Then I turned 16.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849807</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>fahrvergnugen</author>
	<datestamp>1256328360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A walled garden is by definition a monopoly force. If multiple organizations charge all entities to appear in their network, then interconnection becomes a classic prisoner's dilemma. Connecting to other gardens opens the door to competitive pricing for access to the complete network, rather than an all-or-nothing deal. AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were eventually done in by the ability of news providers and corporations to host their own sites on the World Wide Web for a single fee, rather than paying each walled-garden provider separately.

</p><p>If these entities were not forced to compete with a subsidized, not-for-profit network that happily allowed them each to peer not only with one another, but also those who chose not to subscribe to or publish on any walled-garden service, what would have become of the marketplace?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A walled garden is by definition a monopoly force .
If multiple organizations charge all entities to appear in their network , then interconnection becomes a classic prisoner 's dilemma .
Connecting to other gardens opens the door to competitive pricing for access to the complete network , rather than an all-or-nothing deal .
AOL , Prodigy , and Compuserve were eventually done in by the ability of news providers and corporations to host their own sites on the World Wide Web for a single fee , rather than paying each walled-garden provider separately .
If these entities were not forced to compete with a subsidized , not-for-profit network that happily allowed them each to peer not only with one another , but also those who chose not to subscribe to or publish on any walled-garden service , what would have become of the marketplace ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A walled garden is by definition a monopoly force.
If multiple organizations charge all entities to appear in their network, then interconnection becomes a classic prisoner's dilemma.
Connecting to other gardens opens the door to competitive pricing for access to the complete network, rather than an all-or-nothing deal.
AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were eventually done in by the ability of news providers and corporations to host their own sites on the World Wide Web for a single fee, rather than paying each walled-garden provider separately.
If these entities were not forced to compete with a subsidized, not-for-profit network that happily allowed them each to peer not only with one another, but also those who chose not to subscribe to or publish on any walled-garden service, what would have become of the marketplace?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850295</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>mathfeel</author>
	<datestamp>1256330340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We are Jeffersonians, and the ruling elite (of both major parties--which most libertarians don't consider to be any different) are Hamiltonians.</p></div><p>
Yes, the ruling elite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian\_(quantum\_mechanics)" title="wikipedia.org">operates</a> [wikipedia.org] on you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are Jeffersonians , and the ruling elite ( of both major parties--which most libertarians do n't consider to be any different ) are Hamiltonians .
Yes , the ruling elite operates [ wikipedia.org ] on you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are Jeffersonians, and the ruling elite (of both major parties--which most libertarians don't consider to be any different) are Hamiltonians.
Yes, the ruling elite operates [wikipedia.org] on you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853207</id>
	<title>I think that one deserves a mod point</title>
	<author>BattyMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256304480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the crux of this discussion.</p><p>Libertarians should strive for MINIMAL regulation, in the interest of providing Fair Competition in a Free Marketplace.</p><p>Over-regulation, OTOH, is even worse than none at all, because it gives arbitrary control to some regulatory body which probably doesn't deserve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the crux of this discussion.Libertarians should strive for MINIMAL regulation , in the interest of providing Fair Competition in a Free Marketplace.Over-regulation , OTOH , is even worse than none at all , because it gives arbitrary control to some regulatory body which probably does n't deserve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the crux of this discussion.Libertarians should strive for MINIMAL regulation, in the interest of providing Fair Competition in a Free Marketplace.Over-regulation, OTOH, is even worse than none at all, because it gives arbitrary control to some regulatory body which probably doesn't deserve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847643</id>
	<title>Hearland isn't really libertarian</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1256320680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hearland isn't really libertarian, it just says the sort of things its corporate sponsors like to hear.</p><p>For instance, they denied any negative effects of second-hand smoking, and are at the forefront of AGW denial.</p><p>But then again, it seems most people who call themselves libertarian do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hearland is n't really libertarian , it just says the sort of things its corporate sponsors like to hear.For instance , they denied any negative effects of second-hand smoking , and are at the forefront of AGW denial.But then again , it seems most people who call themselves libertarian do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hearland isn't really libertarian, it just says the sort of things its corporate sponsors like to hear.For instance, they denied any negative effects of second-hand smoking, and are at the forefront of AGW denial.But then again, it seems most people who call themselves libertarian do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29855049</id>
	<title>Re:Not terribly surprising...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256379660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, face it. The vast majority of people who call themselves Libertarians today know absolutely jack shit about Libertarian philosophy, the alternatives to Libertarianism, or even the main actors in western political and economic theory. This includes politicians. "Libertarian" is just a meaningless brand, a buzz word with a little bit of marketing value today. People need labels to classify themselves because it gives them comfort and a sense of belonging. "Libertarian", being derived from "Liberty" sounds really nice. This is why suddenly so many social conservative border quacks are calling themselves Libertarians. In the 90s no one cared, and in the '80s when Ron Paul was screaming for legalization of all drugs would end all drug-related crime on the Morton Downy Jr show, sensible people rightly laughed their heads off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , face it .
The vast majority of people who call themselves Libertarians today know absolutely jack shit about Libertarian philosophy , the alternatives to Libertarianism , or even the main actors in western political and economic theory .
This includes politicians .
" Libertarian " is just a meaningless brand , a buzz word with a little bit of marketing value today .
People need labels to classify themselves because it gives them comfort and a sense of belonging .
" Libertarian " , being derived from " Liberty " sounds really nice .
This is why suddenly so many social conservative border quacks are calling themselves Libertarians .
In the 90s no one cared , and in the '80s when Ron Paul was screaming for legalization of all drugs would end all drug-related crime on the Morton Downy Jr show , sensible people rightly laughed their heads off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, face it.
The vast majority of people who call themselves Libertarians today know absolutely jack shit about Libertarian philosophy, the alternatives to Libertarianism, or even the main actors in western political and economic theory.
This includes politicians.
"Libertarian" is just a meaningless brand, a buzz word with a little bit of marketing value today.
People need labels to classify themselves because it gives them comfort and a sense of belonging.
"Libertarian", being derived from "Liberty" sounds really nice.
This is why suddenly so many social conservative border quacks are calling themselves Libertarians.
In the 90s no one cared, and in the '80s when Ron Paul was screaming for legalization of all drugs would end all drug-related crime on the Morton Downy Jr show, sensible people rightly laughed their heads off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851845</id>
	<title>Paid corporate shills != "libertarians"</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1256293260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that all of these "institutes" or "think tanks" or "analysts groups" or whatever; are just paid corporate shills. In spite of what they may call themselves, they are in no way objective, neutral, conservative, libertarian, or anything else. They say whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to say, their "studies" prove whatever their corporate sponsors want them to "prove."</p><p>I consider myself to be fairly familiar with libertarian thought, and I see no reason that free software would be a problem with any real libertarian.</p><p>Furthermore, what major proprietary software company does not give away tons of free software? Microsoft gives away an "express" (i.e. free) version of practically everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that all of these " institutes " or " think tanks " or " analysts groups " or whatever ; are just paid corporate shills .
In spite of what they may call themselves , they are in no way objective , neutral , conservative , libertarian , or anything else .
They say whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to say , their " studies " prove whatever their corporate sponsors want them to " prove .
" I consider myself to be fairly familiar with libertarian thought , and I see no reason that free software would be a problem with any real libertarian.Furthermore , what major proprietary software company does not give away tons of free software ?
Microsoft gives away an " express " ( i.e .
free ) version of practically everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that all of these "institutes" or "think tanks" or "analysts groups" or whatever; are just paid corporate shills.
In spite of what they may call themselves, they are in no way objective, neutral, conservative, libertarian, or anything else.
They say whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to say, their "studies" prove whatever their corporate sponsors want them to "prove.
"I consider myself to be fairly familiar with libertarian thought, and I see no reason that free software would be a problem with any real libertarian.Furthermore, what major proprietary software company does not give away tons of free software?
Microsoft gives away an "express" (i.e.
free) version of practically everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851923</id>
	<title>What's up with the attack on libertarians lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256293740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever since Obama won the presidency it seems like libertarians have been attacked from every angle. I'm not sure if it is because the republican party is fragmenting, or if because FoxNews decided we were too much of a nuisance and wanted to sabotage them with Glen Beck and the Tea Parties. Libertarianism is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, one of a government out of control. Anyone who doubts this, move to California. I'm probably breaking coincidental three laws just sitting here typing on slashdot. There seems to be a lot of attention on libertarianism lately, even though I don't believe they've ever been polled nationally higher than 1\%.

I just don't want to subsidize large corporations with bailouts, I want to be able to start a business with little hassle (I'm not against regulations, but try setting up a small business in California, the regulations are ridiculous), I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me what I put into my body, I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me who I am allowed to marry (as consenting adults), I don't want my money to fund unnecessary wars, and I believe I have the right to be secure and safe (and recognize the police has no obligation to do so). Apparently less than 2\% of the population agrees with me though.

I don't give a shit about libertarian economics. Any reasonable person recognizes that a mixed market is necessary. The problem is everyone wants to control everyone else, and some are getting away with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since Obama won the presidency it seems like libertarians have been attacked from every angle .
I 'm not sure if it is because the republican party is fragmenting , or if because FoxNews decided we were too much of a nuisance and wanted to sabotage them with Glen Beck and the Tea Parties .
Libertarianism is an extreme solution to an extreme problem , one of a government out of control .
Anyone who doubts this , move to California .
I 'm probably breaking coincidental three laws just sitting here typing on slashdot .
There seems to be a lot of attention on libertarianism lately , even though I do n't believe they 've ever been polled nationally higher than 1 \ % .
I just do n't want to subsidize large corporations with bailouts , I want to be able to start a business with little hassle ( I 'm not against regulations , but try setting up a small business in California , the regulations are ridiculous ) , I do n't believe anyone has the right to tell me what I put into my body , I do n't believe anyone has the right to tell me who I am allowed to marry ( as consenting adults ) , I do n't want my money to fund unnecessary wars , and I believe I have the right to be secure and safe ( and recognize the police has no obligation to do so ) .
Apparently less than 2 \ % of the population agrees with me though .
I do n't give a shit about libertarian economics .
Any reasonable person recognizes that a mixed market is necessary .
The problem is everyone wants to control everyone else , and some are getting away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since Obama won the presidency it seems like libertarians have been attacked from every angle.
I'm not sure if it is because the republican party is fragmenting, or if because FoxNews decided we were too much of a nuisance and wanted to sabotage them with Glen Beck and the Tea Parties.
Libertarianism is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, one of a government out of control.
Anyone who doubts this, move to California.
I'm probably breaking coincidental three laws just sitting here typing on slashdot.
There seems to be a lot of attention on libertarianism lately, even though I don't believe they've ever been polled nationally higher than 1\%.
I just don't want to subsidize large corporations with bailouts, I want to be able to start a business with little hassle (I'm not against regulations, but try setting up a small business in California, the regulations are ridiculous), I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me what I put into my body, I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me who I am allowed to marry (as consenting adults), I don't want my money to fund unnecessary wars, and I believe I have the right to be secure and safe (and recognize the police has no obligation to do so).
Apparently less than 2\% of the population agrees with me though.
I don't give a shit about libertarian economics.
Any reasonable person recognizes that a mixed market is necessary.
The problem is everyone wants to control everyone else, and some are getting away with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853377</id>
	<title>libertarianism is the mirror image of communism</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>communism believes human altruism trumps all, selfishness can only result in wrong, and so selfishness must be stamped out. they imagine the future to be an egalitarian community of equally deserving middle class peers, achieved via the state deciding what is best for all. the result is a group of poor people lorded over by an autocrat who is the state, since decision making must reside somewhere if everyone else relinquishes it</p><p>libertarianism believes human selfishness trumps all, altruism can only result in wrong, and altruism must be stamped out. they imagine the future to be a balanced federation of equally successful middle class peers, achieved via the natural self-correcting effects of the market. the result is a group of poor people lorded over by a monopolist who takes advantage of the natural imperfections in the market better than anyone else</p><p>both libertarianism and communism are equally flawed ideologies destined for the dustbin of history. both had their heydey in the last century and today are really nothing more than philosophical anachronisms no one serious should consider for very long. regard them with the same bemused interest as any other bizarre curiosity of belief from mankind's past</p><p>the truth is that human nature is a paradoxical mix of altruistic and selfish impulses. therefore, any valid political philosophy which claims to be able to lead men must reflect this mix as well. any political philosophy which ignores man's essential altruism or ignores man's essential selfishness cannot lead men for very long, we grow disillusioned when we see the fruits of folly</p><p>the market fundamentalism of libertarianism or agrarian fundamentalism of communism are, like any other form of fundamentalism, simplistic overstatings of human nature, and always result in tragedy and suffering</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>communism believes human altruism trumps all , selfishness can only result in wrong , and so selfishness must be stamped out .
they imagine the future to be an egalitarian community of equally deserving middle class peers , achieved via the state deciding what is best for all .
the result is a group of poor people lorded over by an autocrat who is the state , since decision making must reside somewhere if everyone else relinquishes itlibertarianism believes human selfishness trumps all , altruism can only result in wrong , and altruism must be stamped out .
they imagine the future to be a balanced federation of equally successful middle class peers , achieved via the natural self-correcting effects of the market .
the result is a group of poor people lorded over by a monopolist who takes advantage of the natural imperfections in the market better than anyone elseboth libertarianism and communism are equally flawed ideologies destined for the dustbin of history .
both had their heydey in the last century and today are really nothing more than philosophical anachronisms no one serious should consider for very long .
regard them with the same bemused interest as any other bizarre curiosity of belief from mankind 's pastthe truth is that human nature is a paradoxical mix of altruistic and selfish impulses .
therefore , any valid political philosophy which claims to be able to lead men must reflect this mix as well .
any political philosophy which ignores man 's essential altruism or ignores man 's essential selfishness can not lead men for very long , we grow disillusioned when we see the fruits of follythe market fundamentalism of libertarianism or agrarian fundamentalism of communism are , like any other form of fundamentalism , simplistic overstatings of human nature , and always result in tragedy and suffering</tokentext>
<sentencetext>communism believes human altruism trumps all, selfishness can only result in wrong, and so selfishness must be stamped out.
they imagine the future to be an egalitarian community of equally deserving middle class peers, achieved via the state deciding what is best for all.
the result is a group of poor people lorded over by an autocrat who is the state, since decision making must reside somewhere if everyone else relinquishes itlibertarianism believes human selfishness trumps all, altruism can only result in wrong, and altruism must be stamped out.
they imagine the future to be a balanced federation of equally successful middle class peers, achieved via the natural self-correcting effects of the market.
the result is a group of poor people lorded over by a monopolist who takes advantage of the natural imperfections in the market better than anyone elseboth libertarianism and communism are equally flawed ideologies destined for the dustbin of history.
both had their heydey in the last century and today are really nothing more than philosophical anachronisms no one serious should consider for very long.
regard them with the same bemused interest as any other bizarre curiosity of belief from mankind's pastthe truth is that human nature is a paradoxical mix of altruistic and selfish impulses.
therefore, any valid political philosophy which claims to be able to lead men must reflect this mix as well.
any political philosophy which ignores man's essential altruism or ignores man's essential selfishness cannot lead men for very long, we grow disillusioned when we see the fruits of follythe market fundamentalism of libertarianism or agrarian fundamentalism of communism are, like any other form of fundamentalism, simplistic overstatings of human nature, and always result in tragedy and suffering</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847309</id>
	<title>Some interesting stuff but a lot of crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off is the conflation of Free Software and "Network Neutrality." In all its many meanings.</p><p>If you be for Free Software, you must be for "Network Neutrality." If you be against NN, you must be a corporate ass-kissing capitalist pigdog white person with a heatbeat racist.</p><p>I have these arguments with many of my progressive friends. I was a progressive. I am still a progressive. I have just become more cynical about the special interests groups that progressives support, which I find to be agents of failure and status quo.</p><p>I see progressive-supported government bureaucracies growing and soaking up resources like sponges without dripping out much of those resources to the causes they are supposed to support.</p><p>And mainly we are told the problem with these bureaucracies is that we just haven't given them enough money and power.</p><p>Many of us classic libs have the same doubts about giving the FCC more power over the Internet. We fear we will see licensing of website content and PC standards imposed and one-stop shopping for RIAA enforcement and more good-ole-boy corporatism before we ever see anything approaching neutrality.</p><p>What this has to do with Free Software, I don't know.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off is the conflation of Free Software and " Network Neutrality .
" In all its many meanings.If you be for Free Software , you must be for " Network Neutrality .
" If you be against NN , you must be a corporate ass-kissing capitalist pigdog white person with a heatbeat racist.I have these arguments with many of my progressive friends .
I was a progressive .
I am still a progressive .
I have just become more cynical about the special interests groups that progressives support , which I find to be agents of failure and status quo.I see progressive-supported government bureaucracies growing and soaking up resources like sponges without dripping out much of those resources to the causes they are supposed to support.And mainly we are told the problem with these bureaucracies is that we just have n't given them enough money and power.Many of us classic libs have the same doubts about giving the FCC more power over the Internet .
We fear we will see licensing of website content and PC standards imposed and one-stop shopping for RIAA enforcement and more good-ole-boy corporatism before we ever see anything approaching neutrality.What this has to do with Free Software , I do n't know .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off is the conflation of Free Software and "Network Neutrality.
" In all its many meanings.If you be for Free Software, you must be for "Network Neutrality.
" If you be against NN, you must be a corporate ass-kissing capitalist pigdog white person with a heatbeat racist.I have these arguments with many of my progressive friends.
I was a progressive.
I am still a progressive.
I have just become more cynical about the special interests groups that progressives support, which I find to be agents of failure and status quo.I see progressive-supported government bureaucracies growing and soaking up resources like sponges without dripping out much of those resources to the causes they are supposed to support.And mainly we are told the problem with these bureaucracies is that we just haven't given them enough money and power.Many of us classic libs have the same doubts about giving the FCC more power over the Internet.
We fear we will see licensing of website content and PC standards imposed and one-stop shopping for RIAA enforcement and more good-ole-boy corporatism before we ever see anything approaching neutrality.What this has to do with Free Software, I don't know.
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852233</id>
	<title>Re:An old Ronald Reagan quote is still true...</title>
	<author>MetricT</author>
	<datestamp>1256295780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reagan may not have understood the economy, but he understood people.  And the world is full of people who think we would be better off if everyone would just use *THEIR* model of how things should work, and shake their fist at reality when it has the audacity to keep on working anyway.  Pure Libertarians are no different here.</p><p>There are often good relative rules, but few absolute rules, there are almost always exceptions.  Every optimization has a trade-off.  Life is always going to be a muddle.  I stand by that thesis.</p><p>Libertarianism is as much an economic philosophy as anything else.  You can't separate the ideology of pure self-reliance from economics.  And every economic model, be it libertarianism, socialism, communism, is just that, a model.  Every model has edge cases and a range of validity, beyond which it breaks down.</p><p>Physics *isn't* real life.   Take that opinion from someone who's almost done with a Ph.D. in Cosmology.  Physics is our mathematical description of the universe, but description doesn't always imply understanding.  In a Godel-like sense, I believe there are true facts about the universe that will never be provable, understandable, perhaps even measurable, and thus those facts are forever beyond the power of physics to describe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reagan may not have understood the economy , but he understood people .
And the world is full of people who think we would be better off if everyone would just use * THEIR * model of how things should work , and shake their fist at reality when it has the audacity to keep on working anyway .
Pure Libertarians are no different here.There are often good relative rules , but few absolute rules , there are almost always exceptions .
Every optimization has a trade-off .
Life is always going to be a muddle .
I stand by that thesis.Libertarianism is as much an economic philosophy as anything else .
You ca n't separate the ideology of pure self-reliance from economics .
And every economic model , be it libertarianism , socialism , communism , is just that , a model .
Every model has edge cases and a range of validity , beyond which it breaks down.Physics * is n't * real life .
Take that opinion from someone who 's almost done with a Ph.D. in Cosmology .
Physics is our mathematical description of the universe , but description does n't always imply understanding .
In a Godel-like sense , I believe there are true facts about the universe that will never be provable , understandable , perhaps even measurable , and thus those facts are forever beyond the power of physics to describe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reagan may not have understood the economy, but he understood people.
And the world is full of people who think we would be better off if everyone would just use *THEIR* model of how things should work, and shake their fist at reality when it has the audacity to keep on working anyway.
Pure Libertarians are no different here.There are often good relative rules, but few absolute rules, there are almost always exceptions.
Every optimization has a trade-off.
Life is always going to be a muddle.
I stand by that thesis.Libertarianism is as much an economic philosophy as anything else.
You can't separate the ideology of pure self-reliance from economics.
And every economic model, be it libertarianism, socialism, communism, is just that, a model.
Every model has edge cases and a range of validity, beyond which it breaks down.Physics *isn't* real life.
Take that opinion from someone who's almost done with a Ph.D. in Cosmology.
Physics is our mathematical description of the universe, but description doesn't always imply understanding.
In a Godel-like sense, I believe there are true facts about the universe that will never be provable, understandable, perhaps even measurable, and thus those facts are forever beyond the power of physics to describe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851255</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256290740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>While I tend toward moderate libertarian ideals myself, this is a great example of why I always end up feeling alienated from the party itself. They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugs...</i> </p><p>No, you tend to lie.  You are not a libertarian in any measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I tend toward moderate libertarian ideals myself , this is a great example of why I always end up feeling alienated from the party itself .
They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugs... No , you tend to lie .
You are not a libertarian in any measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I tend toward moderate libertarian ideals myself, this is a great example of why I always end up feeling alienated from the party itself.
They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugs... No, you tend to lie.
You are not a libertarian in any measure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847305</id>
	<title>Libertarians assume government the only evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience with Libertarians (with a capital "L") is that they generally equate less government with more freedom, while ignoring the fact that the problem is not government, but monopolies.  Sometimes government acts as a monopoly.  But sometimes government acts against other monopolies (cable companies, utilities, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with Libertarians ( with a capital " L " ) is that they generally equate less government with more freedom , while ignoring the fact that the problem is not government , but monopolies .
Sometimes government acts as a monopoly .
But sometimes government acts against other monopolies ( cable companies , utilities , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with Libertarians (with a capital "L") is that they generally equate less government with more freedom, while ignoring the fact that the problem is not government, but monopolies.
Sometimes government acts as a monopoly.
But sometimes government acts against other monopolies (cable companies, utilities, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847413</id>
	<title>Re:Please Read My Blog</title>
	<author>LMacG</author>
	<datestamp>1256319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A while back I tried to start a trend by tagging such stories with "pimpmyblog", but it never really caught on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back I tried to start a trend by tagging such stories with " pimpmyblog " , but it never really caught on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back I tried to start a trend by tagging such stories with "pimpmyblog", but it never really caught on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256329740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>(sigh)<br>And when all the ISPs "independently" decide to start charging every time you access google? Will you move to another country?<br>I'm in a similar situation: my ISP has defined some policies that I don't agree with but <b>all</b> the available "alternatives" do exactly the same thing!<br>What would a libertarian do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>( sigh ) And when all the ISPs " independently " decide to start charging every time you access google ?
Will you move to another country ? I 'm in a similar situation : my ISP has defined some policies that I do n't agree with but all the available " alternatives " do exactly the same thing ! What would a libertarian do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(sigh)And when all the ISPs "independently" decide to start charging every time you access google?
Will you move to another country?I'm in a similar situation: my ISP has defined some policies that I don't agree with but all the available "alternatives" do exactly the same thing!What would a libertarian do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852301</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1256296260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do they get to make the rules when EVERYONE is armed, and any type of weapon or army that they can raise to institute rules that people don't want is similarly available to anyone else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they get to make the rules when EVERYONE is armed , and any type of weapon or army that they can raise to institute rules that people do n't want is similarly available to anyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they get to make the rules when EVERYONE is armed, and any type of weapon or army that they can raise to institute rules that people don't want is similarly available to anyone else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848605</id>
	<title>I thought government FOSS is about cost and access</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1256324040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Argument that pushing FOSS mandates for government operations is an interference in the free market - consisting of government purchasing agents "expertly" and "freely" choosing proprietary software.]</p><p>I was under the impression that the pushing of FOSS in government was about several other things:</p><p>
&nbsp; 1) Keeping public documents and channels of required communications with government in freely readable formats, rather than locked up in proprietary formats that require those governed to purchase compatible software and/or agree to licensing terms in order to communicate.</p><p>
&nbsp; 2) Keeping the details of the operation of government open and auditable, rather than exposing it to malware inside of black-box software products.</p><p>
&nbsp; 3) Cost containment - imposed on the government by its citizens, who are the primary payers of the taxes that pay for the government's IT operation.</p><p>1) and 2) are clearly "open information" issues, where it's obvious which choice is "open".  Only 3) even touches on either "free market" or "choice in software" ideals that you claim are being violated.  And given that governments (in republics at least) are supposed to be agencies of their citizens, this decision is properly the right of those citizens if they chose to issue such policy directives to their hired agents rather than relying solely on the agents' judgement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Argument that pushing FOSS mandates for government operations is an interference in the free market - consisting of government purchasing agents " expertly " and " freely " choosing proprietary software .
] I was under the impression that the pushing of FOSS in government was about several other things :   1 ) Keeping public documents and channels of required communications with government in freely readable formats , rather than locked up in proprietary formats that require those governed to purchase compatible software and/or agree to licensing terms in order to communicate .
  2 ) Keeping the details of the operation of government open and auditable , rather than exposing it to malware inside of black-box software products .
  3 ) Cost containment - imposed on the government by its citizens , who are the primary payers of the taxes that pay for the government 's IT operation.1 ) and 2 ) are clearly " open information " issues , where it 's obvious which choice is " open " .
Only 3 ) even touches on either " free market " or " choice in software " ideals that you claim are being violated .
And given that governments ( in republics at least ) are supposed to be agencies of their citizens , this decision is properly the right of those citizens if they chose to issue such policy directives to their hired agents rather than relying solely on the agents ' judgement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Argument that pushing FOSS mandates for government operations is an interference in the free market - consisting of government purchasing agents "expertly" and "freely" choosing proprietary software.
]I was under the impression that the pushing of FOSS in government was about several other things:
  1) Keeping public documents and channels of required communications with government in freely readable formats, rather than locked up in proprietary formats that require those governed to purchase compatible software and/or agree to licensing terms in order to communicate.
  2) Keeping the details of the operation of government open and auditable, rather than exposing it to malware inside of black-box software products.
  3) Cost containment - imposed on the government by its citizens, who are the primary payers of the taxes that pay for the government's IT operation.1) and 2) are clearly "open information" issues, where it's obvious which choice is "open".
Only 3) even touches on either "free market" or "choice in software" ideals that you claim are being violated.
And given that governments (in republics at least) are supposed to be agencies of their citizens, this decision is properly the right of those citizens if they chose to issue such policy directives to their hired agents rather than relying solely on the agents' judgement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847399</id>
	<title>Re:Not all Libertarians are Free Market</title>
	<author>MaerD</author>
	<datestamp>1256319660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I so misread that as:<p><div class="quote"><p>I'd say the F/OSS market is the BEST expression of Libertarian though, especially the Limited BDSM style licenses. The GPL, well, that's another debate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div><p>Which would, indeed, be a vastly different debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I so misread that as : I 'd say the F/OSS market is the BEST expression of Libertarian though , especially the Limited BDSM style licenses .
The GPL , well , that 's another debate ; ) Which would , indeed , be a vastly different debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I so misread that as:I'd say the F/OSS market is the BEST expression of Libertarian though, especially the Limited BDSM style licenses.
The GPL, well, that's another debate ;)Which would, indeed, be a vastly different debate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851407</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256291340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 'l'ibertarian. . . can someone tell me when we agreed on a standing army at the federal level?  I don't recall that being a libertarian ideal.</p><p>Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 'l'ibertarian .
. .
can someone tell me when we agreed on a standing army at the federal level ?
I do n't recall that being a libertarian ideal.Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 'l'ibertarian.
. .
can someone tell me when we agreed on a standing army at the federal level?
I don't recall that being a libertarian ideal.Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847329</id>
	<title>True Libertarians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libertarians believe that the government should not interfere in the affairs of any person or institution unless and until the actions of that person or institution violate the rights of another.</p><p>The theory here is that when the government regulates what a free business (ISP) can do with it's own "tubes", the government is stepping over the line above.</p><p>Therefore, if you are a libertarian, you cannot, truly, believe in a GOVERNMENT impossed rule set for how ISPs govern their own businesses.  You must say that the government should not be interferring at all, unless the ISP is violating some right that you have as the consumer (which you will not be able to show, because, unlike some places you have no "RIGHT" to the internet, AND you sign an agreement with the ISP giving up some of your other rights, willingly).</p><p>As much as I, the consumer, would love to have a net-neutrality situation, as a true libertarian, I would MUCH prefer the government stay out of it all together, therefore saving me tax money wasted on a fruitless endevour...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians believe that the government should not interfere in the affairs of any person or institution unless and until the actions of that person or institution violate the rights of another.The theory here is that when the government regulates what a free business ( ISP ) can do with it 's own " tubes " , the government is stepping over the line above.Therefore , if you are a libertarian , you can not , truly , believe in a GOVERNMENT impossed rule set for how ISPs govern their own businesses .
You must say that the government should not be interferring at all , unless the ISP is violating some right that you have as the consumer ( which you will not be able to show , because , unlike some places you have no " RIGHT " to the internet , AND you sign an agreement with the ISP giving up some of your other rights , willingly ) .As much as I , the consumer , would love to have a net-neutrality situation , as a true libertarian , I would MUCH prefer the government stay out of it all together , therefore saving me tax money wasted on a fruitless endevour.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians believe that the government should not interfere in the affairs of any person or institution unless and until the actions of that person or institution violate the rights of another.The theory here is that when the government regulates what a free business (ISP) can do with it's own "tubes", the government is stepping over the line above.Therefore, if you are a libertarian, you cannot, truly, believe in a GOVERNMENT impossed rule set for how ISPs govern their own businesses.
You must say that the government should not be interferring at all, unless the ISP is violating some right that you have as the consumer (which you will not be able to show, because, unlike some places you have no "RIGHT" to the internet, AND you sign an agreement with the ISP giving up some of your other rights, willingly).As much as I, the consumer, would love to have a net-neutrality situation, as a true libertarian, I would MUCH prefer the government stay out of it all together, therefore saving me tax money wasted on a fruitless endevour...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847849</id>
	<title>Great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only converse with Nobel Peace Prize winners and those with mathematical proofs for God's non-existence.</p><p>Nice echo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only converse with Nobel Peace Prize winners and those with mathematical proofs for God 's non-existence.Nice echo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only converse with Nobel Peace Prize winners and those with mathematical proofs for God's non-existence.Nice echo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851771</id>
	<title>Re:Hear, hear!</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1256292960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Libertarianism in the tradition of Ann Rand</p></div><p>So, you mean pure unfettered fascism as envisioned by its "theoricians" - and it's Ayn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarianism in the tradition of Ann RandSo , you mean pure unfettered fascism as envisioned by its " theoricians " - and it 's Ayn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarianism in the tradition of Ann RandSo, you mean pure unfettered fascism as envisioned by its "theoricians" - and it's Ayn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848629</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Explain, in your own words, how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structure.</p></div><p>Not a big-L, but really? I'd be interested to hear how the absence of government force and taxes would hinder such development. The Internet is just a communications medium. Was government required to develop DVD? Blu-Ray? Radio and TV? Granted, it wouldn't have evolved identically, but it seems far-fetched that people are incapable of creating and entering into things like right-of-way (for fiber) and peering agreements without mommy government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain , in your own words , how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structure.Not a big-L , but really ?
I 'd be interested to hear how the absence of government force and taxes would hinder such development .
The Internet is just a communications medium .
Was government required to develop DVD ?
Blu-Ray ? Radio and TV ?
Granted , it would n't have evolved identically , but it seems far-fetched that people are incapable of creating and entering into things like right-of-way ( for fiber ) and peering agreements without mommy government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain, in your own words, how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structure.Not a big-L, but really?
I'd be interested to hear how the absence of government force and taxes would hinder such development.
The Internet is just a communications medium.
Was government required to develop DVD?
Blu-Ray? Radio and TV?
Granted, it wouldn't have evolved identically, but it seems far-fetched that people are incapable of creating and entering into things like right-of-way (for fiber) and peering agreements without mommy government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851207</id>
	<title>The needs of the many, vs the needs of the one</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1256290500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stallmanite "Free Software," = Collectivism/Communism.  The individual gives up something (the ability to do what they like with software in downstream terms) in order for the collective as a whole to benefit.  (At least, this is the theory)</p><p>Libertarianism/non-copyleft licenses = The individual is considered important as well.  Non-copyleft FOSS licenses do not attempt to dictate any element of downstream use.</p><p>Stallman would try and tell you that copyleft is necessary to preserve FOSS' very continued existence, however that assertion is conclusively proven false by the number of successful BSD/non-copyleft projects in existence.  If the GPL were necessary to hold off the evil, ravening corporations who were supposedly eternally waiting to pounce, and rend every FOSS project in e</p><p>Just yesterday, Bruce Perens implied to me that the GPL is necessary to render FOSS more *popular*, and thus increase its' uptake; but that is a very different thing from saying that copyleft is needed for FOSS to continue to legally survive AT ALL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallmanite " Free Software , " = Collectivism/Communism .
The individual gives up something ( the ability to do what they like with software in downstream terms ) in order for the collective as a whole to benefit .
( At least , this is the theory ) Libertarianism/non-copyleft licenses = The individual is considered important as well .
Non-copyleft FOSS licenses do not attempt to dictate any element of downstream use.Stallman would try and tell you that copyleft is necessary to preserve FOSS ' very continued existence , however that assertion is conclusively proven false by the number of successful BSD/non-copyleft projects in existence .
If the GPL were necessary to hold off the evil , ravening corporations who were supposedly eternally waiting to pounce , and rend every FOSS project in eJust yesterday , Bruce Perens implied to me that the GPL is necessary to render FOSS more * popular * , and thus increase its ' uptake ; but that is a very different thing from saying that copyleft is needed for FOSS to continue to legally survive AT ALL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallmanite "Free Software," = Collectivism/Communism.
The individual gives up something (the ability to do what they like with software in downstream terms) in order for the collective as a whole to benefit.
(At least, this is the theory)Libertarianism/non-copyleft licenses = The individual is considered important as well.
Non-copyleft FOSS licenses do not attempt to dictate any element of downstream use.Stallman would try and tell you that copyleft is necessary to preserve FOSS' very continued existence, however that assertion is conclusively proven false by the number of successful BSD/non-copyleft projects in existence.
If the GPL were necessary to hold off the evil, ravening corporations who were supposedly eternally waiting to pounce, and rend every FOSS project in eJust yesterday, Bruce Perens implied to me that the GPL is necessary to render FOSS more *popular*, and thus increase its' uptake; but that is a very different thing from saying that copyleft is needed for FOSS to continue to legally survive AT ALL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848227</id>
	<title>free beer/speech</title>
	<author>emkyooess</author>
	<datestamp>1256322600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some [libertarians|FOSS-supporters] are all about the free beer.  Others are all about the free speech.  The former are the most recognizable, but the latter is what it's really about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some [ libertarians | FOSS-supporters ] are all about the free beer .
Others are all about the free speech .
The former are the most recognizable , but the latter is what it 's really about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some [libertarians|FOSS-supporters] are all about the free beer.
Others are all about the free speech.
The former are the most recognizable, but the latter is what it's really about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848997</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.theadvocates.org/secrets-interview.html" title="theadvocates.org" rel="nofollow">Interview with Michael Cloud</a> [theadvocates.org]</p><p>"Finally, I found that I could get a rise out of people with over-the-top, in-your-face, shocking statements about libertarianism. So I went from ineffective conversations to actually losing friends and alienating people."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interview with Michael Cloud [ theadvocates.org ] " Finally , I found that I could get a rise out of people with over-the-top , in-your-face , shocking statements about libertarianism .
So I went from ineffective conversations to actually losing friends and alienating people .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interview with Michael Cloud [theadvocates.org]"Finally, I found that I could get a rise out of people with over-the-top, in-your-face, shocking statements about libertarianism.
So I went from ineffective conversations to actually losing friends and alienating people.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237</id>
	<title>Copyright</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256319000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced. You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal.   Copyright is a government interference in the market, using force to set up temporary monopolies.  If I understand libertarianism, that's a bad thing.  So under the libertarian ideal, there would be no copyright, and so no GNU software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced .
You ca n't place terms ( such as releasing the source code ) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal .
Copyright is a government interference in the market , using force to set up temporary monopolies .
If I understand libertarianism , that 's a bad thing .
So under the libertarian ideal , there would be no copyright , and so no GNU software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced.
You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal.
Copyright is a government interference in the market, using force to set up temporary monopolies.
If I understand libertarianism, that's a bad thing.
So under the libertarian ideal, there would be no copyright, and so no GNU software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848121</id>
	<title>Re:Be forced to be free?</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1256322300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is good to force you to be free? (GNU GPL)?</p></div><p>Nobody's holding a gun to your head and telling you to use the software.  There is no force involved -- only a really strong incentive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is good to force you to be free ?
( GNU GPL ) ? Nobody 's holding a gun to your head and telling you to use the software .
There is no force involved -- only a really strong incentive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is good to force you to be free?
(GNU GPL)?Nobody's holding a gun to your head and telling you to use the software.
There is no force involved -- only a really strong incentive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848201</id>
	<title>yet another hit piece on libertarians</title>
	<author>MagicMerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1256322540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>at least we're used to it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>at least we 're used to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at least we're used to it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847949</id>
	<title>hypocrites</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GNU software, free software, open source software is largely being developed by commercial and private entities, free from government interference, and usually with clear commercial and financial objectives.</p><p>Anybody who objects to that is an enemy of the free market, and most certainly not a libertarian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GNU software , free software , open source software is largely being developed by commercial and private entities , free from government interference , and usually with clear commercial and financial objectives.Anybody who objects to that is an enemy of the free market , and most certainly not a libertarian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNU software, free software, open source software is largely being developed by commercial and private entities, free from government interference, and usually with clear commercial and financial objectives.Anybody who objects to that is an enemy of the free market, and most certainly not a libertarian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1256321100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are a few things most libertarians favor, legalized drugs, ending of the licensing of barbers, doctors, lawyers,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... , no public schools, a Federal Government who's only job is have a military to protect it's citizens, maintain roads, and settle disputes between states.  It is not so much greed as it is minimizing government and having personal responsibility for one's own welfare.  Libertarians do not care about giving away software for free they just have a problem with the ideologies of many of the people in the open source community, who tend to favor a cradle to grave from of government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are a few things most libertarians favor , legalized drugs , ending of the licensing of barbers , doctors , lawyers , ... , no public schools , a Federal Government who 's only job is have a military to protect it 's citizens , maintain roads , and settle disputes between states .
It is not so much greed as it is minimizing government and having personal responsibility for one 's own welfare .
Libertarians do not care about giving away software for free they just have a problem with the ideologies of many of the people in the open source community , who tend to favor a cradle to grave from of government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are a few things most libertarians favor, legalized drugs, ending of the licensing of barbers, doctors, lawyers, ... , no public schools, a Federal Government who's only job is have a military to protect it's citizens, maintain roads, and settle disputes between states.
It is not so much greed as it is minimizing government and having personal responsibility for one's own welfare.
Libertarians do not care about giving away software for free they just have a problem with the ideologies of many of the people in the open source community, who tend to favor a cradle to grave from of government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852189</id>
	<title>Faux libertarianism, however...</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1256295540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What needs to be understood is that a large number of people calling themselves <i>libertarians</i> are more accurately described as <i>capitalists</i>: They support both the free-market and anti--free-market aspects of capitalism, but since capitalism likes to frame itself as all about the "free market," they think they're libertarians. (Ayn Rand is largely to blaim for the conflation of these two terms; in the nineteenth century <i>capitalism</i> described what we'd call <em>corporatism</em> (or perhaps "economic fascism") today.
</p><p>Free software is obviously 100\% compatible with libertarianism, but it's a threat to capitalism. Free software is just another choice people can make, and libertarianism is, at its core, about holding a person's right to choose as inviolable.</p><p>That said, "network neutrality"---restrictions placed on how bandwidth providers can charge, and what for---is nothing more than protectionist government regulation, and not compatible with a free market or libertarianism. It restricts bandwidth providers' right to choose how to run their networks (their private property) however they want, and it's thus a restriction on the free market. Just because it protects consumers instead of producers (e.g., like "intellectual property laws" do) doesn't make it a good thing, and doesn't make it a non-restriction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What needs to be understood is that a large number of people calling themselves libertarians are more accurately described as capitalists : They support both the free-market and anti--free-market aspects of capitalism , but since capitalism likes to frame itself as all about the " free market , " they think they 're libertarians .
( Ayn Rand is largely to blaim for the conflation of these two terms ; in the nineteenth century capitalism described what we 'd call corporatism ( or perhaps " economic fascism " ) today .
Free software is obviously 100 \ % compatible with libertarianism , but it 's a threat to capitalism .
Free software is just another choice people can make , and libertarianism is , at its core , about holding a person 's right to choose as inviolable.That said , " network neutrality " ---restrictions placed on how bandwidth providers can charge , and what for---is nothing more than protectionist government regulation , and not compatible with a free market or libertarianism .
It restricts bandwidth providers ' right to choose how to run their networks ( their private property ) however they want , and it 's thus a restriction on the free market .
Just because it protects consumers instead of producers ( e.g. , like " intellectual property laws " do ) does n't make it a good thing , and does n't make it a non-restriction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What needs to be understood is that a large number of people calling themselves libertarians are more accurately described as capitalists: They support both the free-market and anti--free-market aspects of capitalism, but since capitalism likes to frame itself as all about the "free market," they think they're libertarians.
(Ayn Rand is largely to blaim for the conflation of these two terms; in the nineteenth century capitalism described what we'd call corporatism (or perhaps "economic fascism") today.
Free software is obviously 100\% compatible with libertarianism, but it's a threat to capitalism.
Free software is just another choice people can make, and libertarianism is, at its core, about holding a person's right to choose as inviolable.That said, "network neutrality"---restrictions placed on how bandwidth providers can charge, and what for---is nothing more than protectionist government regulation, and not compatible with a free market or libertarianism.
It restricts bandwidth providers' right to choose how to run their networks (their private property) however they want, and it's thus a restriction on the free market.
Just because it protects consumers instead of producers (e.g., like "intellectual property laws" do) doesn't make it a good thing, and doesn't make it a non-restriction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847671</id>
	<title>Lakely is not "Libertarians"</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1256320740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>OP gives exactly one example, then sees fit to try to drag all Libertarians into this category. Bad, bad OP.
<br> <br>
Lakely is obviously ignorant of what most "free" (open source) software is all about, and he has just as obviously been influenced by the more radical free software advocates like Stallman.
<br> <br>
But one misguided person is not all Libertarians. Most Libertarians I know are fine with Free and Open Source Software, and in fact some of them actively participate in developing for it. I think OP should retract his over-broad and unfounded generalization, and perhaps even apologize to Libertarians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OP gives exactly one example , then sees fit to try to drag all Libertarians into this category .
Bad , bad OP .
Lakely is obviously ignorant of what most " free " ( open source ) software is all about , and he has just as obviously been influenced by the more radical free software advocates like Stallman .
But one misguided person is not all Libertarians .
Most Libertarians I know are fine with Free and Open Source Software , and in fact some of them actively participate in developing for it .
I think OP should retract his over-broad and unfounded generalization , and perhaps even apologize to Libertarians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP gives exactly one example, then sees fit to try to drag all Libertarians into this category.
Bad, bad OP.
Lakely is obviously ignorant of what most "free" (open source) software is all about, and he has just as obviously been influenced by the more radical free software advocates like Stallman.
But one misguided person is not all Libertarians.
Most Libertarians I know are fine with Free and Open Source Software, and in fact some of them actively participate in developing for it.
I think OP should retract his over-broad and unfounded generalization, and perhaps even apologize to Libertarians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849255</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256326320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the majority of your problem is that you feel you need to be part of 'the party'.</p><p>Why not believe what you believe and leave the party crap at the door.  Vote for the individual that fills a specific position in the government best, regardless of what party they are in.</p><p>If everyone did that, your concern, wouldn't be an issue, and the government would be a far better place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the majority of your problem is that you feel you need to be part of 'the party'.Why not believe what you believe and leave the party crap at the door .
Vote for the individual that fills a specific position in the government best , regardless of what party they are in.If everyone did that , your concern , would n't be an issue , and the government would be a far better place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the majority of your problem is that you feel you need to be part of 'the party'.Why not believe what you believe and leave the party crap at the door.
Vote for the individual that fills a specific position in the government best, regardless of what party they are in.If everyone did that, your concern, wouldn't be an issue, and the government would be a far better place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848441</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP!!!!!</title>
	<author>paulpach</author>
	<datestamp>1256323500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you,

<p>
I am a libertarian, and I do not believe in net neutrality regulation. However I see nothing wrong with FOSS.
The attempt to put them together as one is simply a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_herring\_(idiom)" title="wikipedia.org">red herring</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
If someone wants to make a more accurate analogy, it would be the government making a law that says that FOSS developers can not restrict commercial uses or distribution of the software they write.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , I am a libertarian , and I do not believe in net neutrality regulation .
However I see nothing wrong with FOSS .
The attempt to put them together as one is simply a red herring [ wikipedia.org ] If someone wants to make a more accurate analogy , it would be the government making a law that says that FOSS developers can not restrict commercial uses or distribution of the software they write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you,


I am a libertarian, and I do not believe in net neutrality regulation.
However I see nothing wrong with FOSS.
The attempt to put them together as one is simply a red herring [wikipedia.org]

If someone wants to make a more accurate analogy, it would be the government making a law that says that FOSS developers can not restrict commercial uses or distribution of the software they write.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247</id>
	<title>Please Read My Blog</title>
	<author>ddillman</author>
	<datestamp>1256319000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me, or is anyone else put off by people tooting their own horn by submitting their blog postings as stories?  I mean, the guy seems to have something serious to say and seems readable, but geez, let someone else submit it to Slashdot, it doesn't look so much like self-serving aggrandizement or driving your page views up by slashdot effect...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or is anyone else put off by people tooting their own horn by submitting their blog postings as stories ?
I mean , the guy seems to have something serious to say and seems readable , but geez , let someone else submit it to Slashdot , it does n't look so much like self-serving aggrandizement or driving your page views up by slashdot effect.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or is anyone else put off by people tooting their own horn by submitting their blog postings as stories?
I mean, the guy seems to have something serious to say and seems readable, but geez, let someone else submit it to Slashdot, it doesn't look so much like self-serving aggrandizement or driving your page views up by slashdot effect...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852093</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1256294820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dislike what you said, but I defend to the death your right to say it.<br> <br>

~A Libertarian</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike what you said , but I defend to the death your right to say it .
~ A Libertarian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike what you said, but I defend to the death your right to say it.
~A Libertarian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852171</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256295360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What would a libertarian do?</p><p>Wait for the market to fix it.  And if the market doesn't fix it, it's because this is a good thing.</p><p>Duh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What would a libertarian do ? Wait for the market to fix it .
And if the market does n't fix it , it 's because this is a good thing.Duh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What would a libertarian do?Wait for the market to fix it.
And if the market doesn't fix it, it's because this is a good thing.Duh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849117</id>
	<title>Pithy</title>
	<author>Efreet</author>
	<datestamp>1256325780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When socialism can defeat capitalism in the free market it deserves to win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When socialism can defeat capitalism in the free market it deserves to win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When socialism can defeat capitalism in the free market it deserves to win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850753</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarian that likes free software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256288820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism. It's the *small guy capitalism*."</p><p>Do you have a clue what capitalism is, how if functions, and what it demands?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Free software is n't socialism , it 's the new capitalism .
It 's the * small guy capitalism * .
" Do you have a clue what capitalism is , how if functions , and what it demands ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism.
It's the *small guy capitalism*.
"Do you have a clue what capitalism is, how if functions, and what it demands?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853661</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1256309520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Because market value is not an attribute of a thing.</p><p>Exactly, it is the \_relationship\_ of the buy and seller that defines the value.</p><p>The only thing I would add to your excellent post is this point is this:</p><p>What complicates the issue is that the \_same\_ thing can have \_multiple\_ values.  i.e. If some idiot wants to pay $1.8 million for a painting with 3 stripes, and someone offers $18, the "perceived" value is \_relative\_.</p><p>The other paradigm shift is that computers have shown us we can "represent" reality: via audio, video, text, information, pictures, etc. as pure numbers.  How can you put a "price" on "artificial scarcity" when it is possible to "copy" a representation of reality unlimited times?  Copyright is an archaic hold over before we realized that imaginary property doesn't have an intrinsic value - only the maximum amount someone is willing to pay for it and as compensation for the time and expertise it took to initially "create" the "thing" in the first place.  What price do you place on Calculus?  If it had been invented in today's age, you would be paying for the privilege for learning its "secrets."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Because market value is not an attribute of a thing.Exactly , it is the \ _relationship \ _ of the buy and seller that defines the value.The only thing I would add to your excellent post is this point is this : What complicates the issue is that the \ _same \ _ thing can have \ _multiple \ _ values .
i.e. If some idiot wants to pay $ 1.8 million for a painting with 3 stripes , and someone offers $ 18 , the " perceived " value is \ _relative \ _.The other paradigm shift is that computers have shown us we can " represent " reality : via audio , video , text , information , pictures , etc .
as pure numbers .
How can you put a " price " on " artificial scarcity " when it is possible to " copy " a representation of reality unlimited times ?
Copyright is an archaic hold over before we realized that imaginary property does n't have an intrinsic value - only the maximum amount someone is willing to pay for it and as compensation for the time and expertise it took to initially " create " the " thing " in the first place .
What price do you place on Calculus ?
If it had been invented in today 's age , you would be paying for the privilege for learning its " secrets .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Because market value is not an attribute of a thing.Exactly, it is the \_relationship\_ of the buy and seller that defines the value.The only thing I would add to your excellent post is this point is this:What complicates the issue is that the \_same\_ thing can have \_multiple\_ values.
i.e. If some idiot wants to pay $1.8 million for a painting with 3 stripes, and someone offers $18, the "perceived" value is \_relative\_.The other paradigm shift is that computers have shown us we can "represent" reality: via audio, video, text, information, pictures, etc.
as pure numbers.
How can you put a "price" on "artificial scarcity" when it is possible to "copy" a representation of reality unlimited times?
Copyright is an archaic hold over before we realized that imaginary property doesn't have an intrinsic value - only the maximum amount someone is willing to pay for it and as compensation for the time and expertise it took to initially "create" the "thing" in the first place.
What price do you place on Calculus?
If it had been invented in today's age, you would be paying for the privilege for learning its "secrets.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852839</id>
	<title>Re: old customs die hard</title>
	<author>Bottlemaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256300640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I thought libertarian and free-market organizations would have disbanded by now because of the bank deregulation and economic catastrophe</p></div></blockquote><p>Right, just like all the other political and financial organizations who took the financial crisis as an opportunity to examine their policies, admit fault when fault was found, and begin the process of reform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought libertarian and free-market organizations would have disbanded by now because of the bank deregulation and economic catastropheRight , just like all the other political and financial organizations who took the financial crisis as an opportunity to examine their policies , admit fault when fault was found , and begin the process of reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought libertarian and free-market organizations would have disbanded by now because of the bank deregulation and economic catastropheRight, just like all the other political and financial organizations who took the financial crisis as an opportunity to examine their policies, admit fault when fault was found, and begin the process of reform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859497</id>
	<title>Not all libertarians...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256377680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not group all libertarians into the set of those who attack free software. I'm a libertarian and don't oppose it. There are plenty others who have no problem with it, I'd imagine the majority in fact. Every group has its radicals, but they don't define the group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not group all libertarians into the set of those who attack free software .
I 'm a libertarian and do n't oppose it .
There are plenty others who have no problem with it , I 'd imagine the majority in fact .
Every group has its radicals , but they do n't define the group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not group all libertarians into the set of those who attack free software.
I'm a libertarian and don't oppose it.
There are plenty others who have no problem with it, I'd imagine the majority in fact.
Every group has its radicals, but they don't define the group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848311</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>edmicman</author>
	<datestamp>1256322900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ack!  Common sense!  Run away!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>Nicely said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ack !
Common sense !
Run away !
: -PNicely said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ack!
Common sense!
Run away!
:-PNicely said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853671</id>
	<title>Re:Without Copyright the GPL woudn't be necessary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256309700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then you have the problem that a company doesn't release source code, only binaries. It is then impossible to modify that software (because you don't have the code), even if the binary is in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then you have the problem that a company does n't release source code , only binaries .
It is then impossible to modify that software ( because you do n't have the code ) , even if the binary is in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then you have the problem that a company doesn't release source code, only binaries.
It is then impossible to modify that software (because you don't have the code), even if the binary is in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850581</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarian that likes free software</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1256331420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism. It's the small guy capitalism.</p></div><p>I've always thought of it as this. Opposition to free software is the broken window fallacy. We keep paying for the same products time and again for the good of the economy. The concept that we make money building on past accomplishments should be a good thing.</p><p>Not a Libertarian...just throwing in my $0.02</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free software is n't socialism , it 's the new capitalism .
It 's the small guy capitalism.I 've always thought of it as this .
Opposition to free software is the broken window fallacy .
We keep paying for the same products time and again for the good of the economy .
The concept that we make money building on past accomplishments should be a good thing.Not a Libertarian...just throwing in my $ 0.02</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism.
It's the small guy capitalism.I've always thought of it as this.
Opposition to free software is the broken window fallacy.
We keep paying for the same products time and again for the good of the economy.
The concept that we make money building on past accomplishments should be a good thing.Not a Libertarian...just throwing in my $0.02
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850539</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1256331240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not believe what you believe and leave the party crap at the door. Vote for the individual that fills a specific position in the government best, regardless of what party they are in.</p></div><p>At least in the U.S., individual politicians are still beholden to the parties, so voting for a guy is in truth just voting for his party, and nothing more. The system itself precludes meaningful way to oppose existing party politics by non-party-affiliated individuals.</p><p>(In truth, it also precludes meaningful way to oppose by third-party-affiliated individuals, so in the end there isn't really that much of a difference.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not believe what you believe and leave the party crap at the door .
Vote for the individual that fills a specific position in the government best , regardless of what party they are in.At least in the U.S. , individual politicians are still beholden to the parties , so voting for a guy is in truth just voting for his party , and nothing more .
The system itself precludes meaningful way to oppose existing party politics by non-party-affiliated individuals .
( In truth , it also precludes meaningful way to oppose by third-party-affiliated individuals , so in the end there is n't really that much of a difference .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not believe what you believe and leave the party crap at the door.
Vote for the individual that fills a specific position in the government best, regardless of what party they are in.At least in the U.S., individual politicians are still beholden to the parties, so voting for a guy is in truth just voting for his party, and nothing more.
The system itself precludes meaningful way to oppose existing party politics by non-party-affiliated individuals.
(In truth, it also precludes meaningful way to oppose by third-party-affiliated individuals, so in the end there isn't really that much of a difference.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852201</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256295540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Libertarians oppose "net neutrality" because there's nothing neutral about it. It's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others. If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p><b>I would support this view *if and only if* Comcast's government-granted exclusive license (monopoly) was revoked, and a free/liberated market restored.   </b>     Until that happens Comcast needs to be restrained by the government from abusing its monopoly, just the same way the Power and Telephone monopolies are restrained/regulated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Libertarians oppose " net neutrality " because there 's nothing neutral about it .
It 's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others .
If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google , let them. &gt; &gt; &gt; I would support this view * if and only if * Comcast 's government-granted exclusive license ( monopoly ) was revoked , and a free/liberated market restored .
Until that happens Comcast needs to be restrained by the government from abusing its monopoly , just the same way the Power and Telephone monopolies are restrained/regulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Libertarians oppose "net neutrality" because there's nothing neutral about it.
It's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others.
If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them.&gt;&gt;&gt;I would support this view *if and only if* Comcast's government-granted exclusive license (monopoly) was revoked, and a free/liberated market restored.
Until that happens Comcast needs to be restrained by the government from abusing its monopoly, just the same way the Power and Telephone monopolies are restrained/regulated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849409</id>
	<title>Re:Any true...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256326860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two problems with your statments.</p><p>First, NT was around before 95.  So 95 being public domain would require some version of NT to be public domain as well.</p><p>Second, If 95 was public domain, their would be no Linux or WINE.  If 95 was public domain, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, and all the other REAL Unixes would be public domain, pretty much removing any reason for Linux as it currently exists, to exist.  Linux is and likely always will be copying and following others.</p><p>Not all GPL software falls into this catagory, but Linux most certainly does.  Its just a copy of what someone else did, without the price.  Nothing wrong with that, but in your theoretical world there would be no need for Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two problems with your statments.First , NT was around before 95 .
So 95 being public domain would require some version of NT to be public domain as well.Second , If 95 was public domain , their would be no Linux or WINE .
If 95 was public domain , Solaris , HP/UX , AIX , and all the other REAL Unixes would be public domain , pretty much removing any reason for Linux as it currently exists , to exist .
Linux is and likely always will be copying and following others.Not all GPL software falls into this catagory , but Linux most certainly does .
Its just a copy of what someone else did , without the price .
Nothing wrong with that , but in your theoretical world there would be no need for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two problems with your statments.First, NT was around before 95.
So 95 being public domain would require some version of NT to be public domain as well.Second, If 95 was public domain, their would be no Linux or WINE.
If 95 was public domain, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, and all the other REAL Unixes would be public domain, pretty much removing any reason for Linux as it currently exists, to exist.
Linux is and likely always will be copying and following others.Not all GPL software falls into this catagory, but Linux most certainly does.
Its just a copy of what someone else did, without the price.
Nothing wrong with that, but in your theoretical world there would be no need for Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848879</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Steve Baker</author>
	<datestamp>1256324820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wanting to control the lives of others is selfish.  To live unfettered from the personal whims of others is not selfish -- it's called freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wanting to control the lives of others is selfish .
To live unfettered from the personal whims of others is not selfish -- it 's called freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wanting to control the lives of others is selfish.
To live unfettered from the personal whims of others is not selfish -- it's called freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851221</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256290560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>every individual has a right to his life, liberty, and everything derived from it (e.g. his income and property) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br><i>he has implied, if not outright stated, that he would like to use force to make all software free as in speech. Libertarianism says that the owners of software should decide how to release it</i></p><p>Doesn't releasing binaries without source code interfere with the rights of others to modify the program running on their computers (their property rights)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>every individual has a right to his life , liberty , and everything derived from it ( e.g .
his income and property ) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others ...he has implied , if not outright stated , that he would like to use force to make all software free as in speech .
Libertarianism says that the owners of software should decide how to release itDoes n't releasing binaries without source code interfere with the rights of others to modify the program running on their computers ( their property rights ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>every individual has a right to his life, liberty, and everything derived from it (e.g.
his income and property) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others ...he has implied, if not outright stated, that he would like to use force to make all software free as in speech.
Libertarianism says that the owners of software should decide how to release itDoesn't releasing binaries without source code interfere with the rights of others to modify the program running on their computers (their property rights)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859609</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>stbill79</author>
	<datestamp>1256378340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You had me going until this:
<p><div class="quote"><p>If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them.</p></div><p>
Many Libertarians are stuck in the <em>world is black or white</em> mode of thought. It is not, and in the case of Comcast and internet access itself, the issue is very gray. Comcast (and its counterparts in all other municipalities) made deals with each community for a monopoly and other subsidies in exchange for agreeing to be more regulated than other industries.
</p><p>
They (and you) have no right to argue that they should not be bound by any 'special' regulation until they give up their monopolies and huge amounts of their infrastructure, which was heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me going until this : If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google , let them .
Many Libertarians are stuck in the world is black or white mode of thought .
It is not , and in the case of Comcast and internet access itself , the issue is very gray .
Comcast ( and its counterparts in all other municipalities ) made deals with each community for a monopoly and other subsidies in exchange for agreeing to be more regulated than other industries .
They ( and you ) have no right to argue that they should not be bound by any 'special ' regulation until they give up their monopolies and huge amounts of their infrastructure , which was heavily subsidized by the taxpayers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me going until this:
If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them.
Many Libertarians are stuck in the world is black or white mode of thought.
It is not, and in the case of Comcast and internet access itself, the issue is very gray.
Comcast (and its counterparts in all other municipalities) made deals with each community for a monopoly and other subsidies in exchange for agreeing to be more regulated than other industries.
They (and you) have no right to argue that they should not be bound by any 'special' regulation until they give up their monopolies and huge amounts of their infrastructure, which was heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850613</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Just Another Poster</author>
	<datestamp>1256331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A free market cannot exist without regulation. Without regulation, everything becomes a monopoly as the largest companies erect barriers to entry for their competitors.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That is Marxist fantasy. True long-term monopolies only exist due to government regulation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A free market can not exist without regulation .
Without regulation , everything becomes a monopoly as the largest companies erect barriers to entry for their competitors .
That is Marxist fantasy .
True long-term monopolies only exist due to government regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A free market cannot exist without regulation.
Without regulation, everything becomes a monopoly as the largest companies erect barriers to entry for their competitors.
That is Marxist fantasy.
True long-term monopolies only exist due to government regulation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879967</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256568000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But that is a right to enjoy, not a right to control. For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus includes a right to control. But the right to control is not fundamental."</p><p>Yes! Thank you. This is the clearest articulation of the issue I've read yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But that is a right to enjoy , not a right to control .
For tangible products , which are intrinsically scarce , a right to enjoy demands a right to control , and thus includes a right to control .
But the right to control is not fundamental. " Yes !
Thank you .
This is the clearest articulation of the issue I 've read yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But that is a right to enjoy, not a right to control.
For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus includes a right to control.
But the right to control is not fundamental."Yes!
Thank you.
This is the clearest articulation of the issue I've read yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848187</id>
	<title>Without Copyright the GPL woudn't be necessary.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1256322540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced. You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal.</i></p><p>The GPL exists to fix a problem with Copyright law:  If you release a work in the public domain, somebody can make a modified version, copyright THAT, and enforce it against YOU.  They can also create a compilation of a number of public domain works and copyright the compilation.</p><p>This means, for instance, that some commercial entity could fix a bug in or add a feature to your public-domain software product and you couldn't make the equivalent fix or add the equivalent feature.  Or they could construct a distribution (ala Red Had or Debian) and copyright it, and no equivalent could be made - first Linux distribution gets a monopoly on Linux distributions.</p><p>GPL and most other FOSS licenses head this off by maintaining the copyright and using the licensing terms on the underlying work to deny adding such restrictions to derived works and compilations.</p><p>But without copyright the restrictions couldn't be added.  Sure, something like the GPL would be unenforceable.  But if someone were to release a bug fix or upgrade, anyone could reverse-engineer it and include the fix/upgrade in another version of the public-domain work.  If someone made a compilation, anyone else could make a similar or identical compilation.  Or they could just copy the fixed/upgraded version or compilation.  So the GPL's purpose - allowing software set free to STAY free - would be realized and the GPL would be unnecessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced .
You ca n't place terms ( such as releasing the source code ) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal.The GPL exists to fix a problem with Copyright law : If you release a work in the public domain , somebody can make a modified version , copyright THAT , and enforce it against YOU .
They can also create a compilation of a number of public domain works and copyright the compilation.This means , for instance , that some commercial entity could fix a bug in or add a feature to your public-domain software product and you could n't make the equivalent fix or add the equivalent feature .
Or they could construct a distribution ( ala Red Had or Debian ) and copyright it , and no equivalent could be made - first Linux distribution gets a monopoly on Linux distributions.GPL and most other FOSS licenses head this off by maintaining the copyright and using the licensing terms on the underlying work to deny adding such restrictions to derived works and compilations.But without copyright the restrictions could n't be added .
Sure , something like the GPL would be unenforceable .
But if someone were to release a bug fix or upgrade , anyone could reverse-engineer it and include the fix/upgrade in another version of the public-domain work .
If someone made a compilation , anyone else could make a similar or identical compilation .
Or they could just copy the fixed/upgraded version or compilation .
So the GPL 's purpose - allowing software set free to STAY free - would be realized and the GPL would be unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced.
You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal.The GPL exists to fix a problem with Copyright law:  If you release a work in the public domain, somebody can make a modified version, copyright THAT, and enforce it against YOU.
They can also create a compilation of a number of public domain works and copyright the compilation.This means, for instance, that some commercial entity could fix a bug in or add a feature to your public-domain software product and you couldn't make the equivalent fix or add the equivalent feature.
Or they could construct a distribution (ala Red Had or Debian) and copyright it, and no equivalent could be made - first Linux distribution gets a monopoly on Linux distributions.GPL and most other FOSS licenses head this off by maintaining the copyright and using the licensing terms on the underlying work to deny adding such restrictions to derived works and compilations.But without copyright the restrictions couldn't be added.
Sure, something like the GPL would be unenforceable.
But if someone were to release a bug fix or upgrade, anyone could reverse-engineer it and include the fix/upgrade in another version of the public-domain work.
If someone made a compilation, anyone else could make a similar or identical compilation.
Or they could just copy the fixed/upgraded version or compilation.
So the GPL's purpose - allowing software set free to STAY free - would be realized and the GPL would be unnecessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849873</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1256328780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart. They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society. Rather, it's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want, keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.</p></div><p>I wouldn't be so sure about that. I used to be a libertarian in my student days (not anymore - see my sig...). Back then, it was definitely not about about any of the things that you mention.</p><p>"Ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want?" - never did that. I don't even smoke, I never even tried any kind of drug, and I drink alcohol very rarely and in small quantities (normally because it's something fairly expensive, too, like liqueur or icewine).</p><p>"Keep all of their money" - didn't really have much money to keep. Didn't pay any taxes either as it was.</p><p>"Hire the cheapest labor they can get" - as a student, <em>I</em> was the cheapest labor someone could get...</p><p>So why was I a libertarian, then? Because I genuinely believed in the underlying philosophy: that freedom is most important, and that the only <em>just</em> society is the one that maximizes freedom, including economic one, even when that has potential negative effect for other people. I was also convinced that it would lead to a more efficient society in utilitarian sense, but that was just icing on the cake. Doing the "right thing" was more important in the end (just like Stallman, who says that you should use FOSS even when it's worse than alternatives, because FOSS is inherently good and ideologically right).</p><p>Another part of it was the perceived elegance of the simplicity of libertarian constructs. Supply and demand. Rational choice. Your freedom ends where my nose begins. The idea of a few simple rules, which, together, describe an elegant and seemingly self-consistent system, is extremely attractive to a tech geek.</p><p>Where I was wrong? In not accounting for the weirdness of human as an animal, and a social one at that. In not realizing that most people, most of the time, are not rational thinkers (they think they are, but rationalization happens postfactum to explain the choice made - there have been several definite studies on that). In ignoring the fact that most people aren't willing to stand up to defend their slightest freedoms, which opens the door for anyone wishing power to take it, at the costs of other's freedoms, slowly - step by step - until a libertarian paradise transforms into an oligarchical corporatist and/or fascist state. Simply put, libertarianism </p><p><div class="quote"><p>That's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart. They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society. Rather, it's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want, keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.</p></div><p>I wouldn't be so sure about that. I used to be a libertarian in my student days (not anymore - see my sig...). Back then, it was definitely not about about any of the things that you mention.</p><p>"Ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want?" - never did that. I don't even smoke, I never even tried any kind of drug, and I drink alcohol very rarely and in small quantities (normally because it's something fairly expensive, too, like liqueur or icewine).</p><p>"Keep all of their money" - didn't really have much money to keep. Didn't pay any taxes either as it was.</p><p>"Hire the cheapest labor they can get" - as a student, <em>I</em> was the cheapest labor someone could get...</p><p>So why was I a libertarian, then? Because I genuinely believed in the underlying philosophy: that freedom is most important, and that the only <em>just</em> society is the one that maximizes freedom, including economic one, even when that has potential negative effect for other people. I was also convinced that it would lead to a more efficient society in utilitarian sense, but that was just icing on the cake. Doing the "right thing" was more important in the end (just like Stallman, who says that you should use FOSS even when it's worse than alternatives, because FOSS is inherently good and ideologically right).</p><p>Another part of it was the perceived elegance of the simplicity of libertarian constructs. Supply and demand. Rational choice. Your freedom ends where my nose begins. The idea of a few simple rules, which, together, describe an elegant and seemingly self-consistent system, is extremely attractive to a tech geek.</p><p>Where I was wrong? In not accounting for the weirdness of human as an animal, and a social one at that. In not realizing that most people, most of the time, are not rational thinkers (they think they are, but rationalization happens postfactum to explain the choice made - there have been several definite studies on that). In ignoring the fact that most people aren't willing to stand up to defend their slightest freedoms, which opens the door for anyone wishing power to take it, at the costs of other's freedoms, slowly - step by step - until a libertarian paradise transforms into an oligarchical corporatist and/or fascist state. Simply put, libertarianism is trusting the wisdom of the crowd. And crowd is rarely right, and even when it is, it's most easily fooled by people skilled at it. Which invariably turn out to be of the sleaziest kind themselves.</p><p>As for the "just" aspect of it - I've got to understand that it really isn't all black and white, and any system will have more justice for some and less for others. It should be quite obvious that many people would inevitably be disenfranchised in a libertarian society, and in the end, the relatively minor injustice of forcibly taking a part of the richer citizen's earnings as taxes is preferable to the major injustice of people starving or dying from easily preventable diseases because of a stroke of bad luck, which those taxes remedy. It's not perfect, but then nothing is, so you have to fall back to utilitarianism to figure out the most optimal point.</p><p>So here I am, now earning quite a bit for myself - definitely enough so that supporting libertarian ideology would very likely make sense for me in strictly monetary terms - and yet, by my political views, I am now left-centre by European measure, and rather far left on the U.S spectrum (left of Obama, that's for sure).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart .
They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society .
Rather , it 's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want , keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.I would n't be so sure about that .
I used to be a libertarian in my student days ( not anymore - see my sig... ) .
Back then , it was definitely not about about any of the things that you mention .
" Ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want ?
" - never did that .
I do n't even smoke , I never even tried any kind of drug , and I drink alcohol very rarely and in small quantities ( normally because it 's something fairly expensive , too , like liqueur or icewine ) .
" Keep all of their money " - did n't really have much money to keep .
Did n't pay any taxes either as it was .
" Hire the cheapest labor they can get " - as a student , I was the cheapest labor someone could get...So why was I a libertarian , then ?
Because I genuinely believed in the underlying philosophy : that freedom is most important , and that the only just society is the one that maximizes freedom , including economic one , even when that has potential negative effect for other people .
I was also convinced that it would lead to a more efficient society in utilitarian sense , but that was just icing on the cake .
Doing the " right thing " was more important in the end ( just like Stallman , who says that you should use FOSS even when it 's worse than alternatives , because FOSS is inherently good and ideologically right ) .Another part of it was the perceived elegance of the simplicity of libertarian constructs .
Supply and demand .
Rational choice .
Your freedom ends where my nose begins .
The idea of a few simple rules , which , together , describe an elegant and seemingly self-consistent system , is extremely attractive to a tech geek.Where I was wrong ?
In not accounting for the weirdness of human as an animal , and a social one at that .
In not realizing that most people , most of the time , are not rational thinkers ( they think they are , but rationalization happens postfactum to explain the choice made - there have been several definite studies on that ) .
In ignoring the fact that most people are n't willing to stand up to defend their slightest freedoms , which opens the door for anyone wishing power to take it , at the costs of other 's freedoms , slowly - step by step - until a libertarian paradise transforms into an oligarchical corporatist and/or fascist state .
Simply put , libertarianism That 's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart .
They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society .
Rather , it 's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want , keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.I would n't be so sure about that .
I used to be a libertarian in my student days ( not anymore - see my sig... ) .
Back then , it was definitely not about about any of the things that you mention .
" Ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want ?
" - never did that .
I do n't even smoke , I never even tried any kind of drug , and I drink alcohol very rarely and in small quantities ( normally because it 's something fairly expensive , too , like liqueur or icewine ) .
" Keep all of their money " - did n't really have much money to keep .
Did n't pay any taxes either as it was .
" Hire the cheapest labor they can get " - as a student , I was the cheapest labor someone could get...So why was I a libertarian , then ?
Because I genuinely believed in the underlying philosophy : that freedom is most important , and that the only just society is the one that maximizes freedom , including economic one , even when that has potential negative effect for other people .
I was also convinced that it would lead to a more efficient society in utilitarian sense , but that was just icing on the cake .
Doing the " right thing " was more important in the end ( just like Stallman , who says that you should use FOSS even when it 's worse than alternatives , because FOSS is inherently good and ideologically right ) .Another part of it was the perceived elegance of the simplicity of libertarian constructs .
Supply and demand .
Rational choice .
Your freedom ends where my nose begins .
The idea of a few simple rules , which , together , describe an elegant and seemingly self-consistent system , is extremely attractive to a tech geek.Where I was wrong ?
In not accounting for the weirdness of human as an animal , and a social one at that .
In not realizing that most people , most of the time , are not rational thinkers ( they think they are , but rationalization happens postfactum to explain the choice made - there have been several definite studies on that ) .
In ignoring the fact that most people are n't willing to stand up to defend their slightest freedoms , which opens the door for anyone wishing power to take it , at the costs of other 's freedoms , slowly - step by step - until a libertarian paradise transforms into an oligarchical corporatist and/or fascist state .
Simply put , libertarianism is trusting the wisdom of the crowd .
And crowd is rarely right , and even when it is , it 's most easily fooled by people skilled at it .
Which invariably turn out to be of the sleaziest kind themselves.As for the " just " aspect of it - I 've got to understand that it really is n't all black and white , and any system will have more justice for some and less for others .
It should be quite obvious that many people would inevitably be disenfranchised in a libertarian society , and in the end , the relatively minor injustice of forcibly taking a part of the richer citizen 's earnings as taxes is preferable to the major injustice of people starving or dying from easily preventable diseases because of a stroke of bad luck , which those taxes remedy .
It 's not perfect , but then nothing is , so you have to fall back to utilitarianism to figure out the most optimal point.So here I am , now earning quite a bit for myself - definitely enough so that supporting libertarian ideology would very likely make sense for me in strictly monetary terms - and yet , by my political views , I am now left-centre by European measure , and rather far left on the U.S spectrum ( left of Obama , that 's for sure ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart.
They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society.
Rather, it's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want, keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.I wouldn't be so sure about that.
I used to be a libertarian in my student days (not anymore - see my sig...).
Back then, it was definitely not about about any of the things that you mention.
"Ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want?
" - never did that.
I don't even smoke, I never even tried any kind of drug, and I drink alcohol very rarely and in small quantities (normally because it's something fairly expensive, too, like liqueur or icewine).
"Keep all of their money" - didn't really have much money to keep.
Didn't pay any taxes either as it was.
"Hire the cheapest labor they can get" - as a student, I was the cheapest labor someone could get...So why was I a libertarian, then?
Because I genuinely believed in the underlying philosophy: that freedom is most important, and that the only just society is the one that maximizes freedom, including economic one, even when that has potential negative effect for other people.
I was also convinced that it would lead to a more efficient society in utilitarian sense, but that was just icing on the cake.
Doing the "right thing" was more important in the end (just like Stallman, who says that you should use FOSS even when it's worse than alternatives, because FOSS is inherently good and ideologically right).Another part of it was the perceived elegance of the simplicity of libertarian constructs.
Supply and demand.
Rational choice.
Your freedom ends where my nose begins.
The idea of a few simple rules, which, together, describe an elegant and seemingly self-consistent system, is extremely attractive to a tech geek.Where I was wrong?
In not accounting for the weirdness of human as an animal, and a social one at that.
In not realizing that most people, most of the time, are not rational thinkers (they think they are, but rationalization happens postfactum to explain the choice made - there have been several definite studies on that).
In ignoring the fact that most people aren't willing to stand up to defend their slightest freedoms, which opens the door for anyone wishing power to take it, at the costs of other's freedoms, slowly - step by step - until a libertarian paradise transforms into an oligarchical corporatist and/or fascist state.
Simply put, libertarianism That's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart.
They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society.
Rather, it's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want, keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.I wouldn't be so sure about that.
I used to be a libertarian in my student days (not anymore - see my sig...).
Back then, it was definitely not about about any of the things that you mention.
"Ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want?
" - never did that.
I don't even smoke, I never even tried any kind of drug, and I drink alcohol very rarely and in small quantities (normally because it's something fairly expensive, too, like liqueur or icewine).
"Keep all of their money" - didn't really have much money to keep.
Didn't pay any taxes either as it was.
"Hire the cheapest labor they can get" - as a student, I was the cheapest labor someone could get...So why was I a libertarian, then?
Because I genuinely believed in the underlying philosophy: that freedom is most important, and that the only just society is the one that maximizes freedom, including economic one, even when that has potential negative effect for other people.
I was also convinced that it would lead to a more efficient society in utilitarian sense, but that was just icing on the cake.
Doing the "right thing" was more important in the end (just like Stallman, who says that you should use FOSS even when it's worse than alternatives, because FOSS is inherently good and ideologically right).Another part of it was the perceived elegance of the simplicity of libertarian constructs.
Supply and demand.
Rational choice.
Your freedom ends where my nose begins.
The idea of a few simple rules, which, together, describe an elegant and seemingly self-consistent system, is extremely attractive to a tech geek.Where I was wrong?
In not accounting for the weirdness of human as an animal, and a social one at that.
In not realizing that most people, most of the time, are not rational thinkers (they think they are, but rationalization happens postfactum to explain the choice made - there have been several definite studies on that).
In ignoring the fact that most people aren't willing to stand up to defend their slightest freedoms, which opens the door for anyone wishing power to take it, at the costs of other's freedoms, slowly - step by step - until a libertarian paradise transforms into an oligarchical corporatist and/or fascist state.
Simply put, libertarianism is trusting the wisdom of the crowd.
And crowd is rarely right, and even when it is, it's most easily fooled by people skilled at it.
Which invariably turn out to be of the sleaziest kind themselves.As for the "just" aspect of it - I've got to understand that it really isn't all black and white, and any system will have more justice for some and less for others.
It should be quite obvious that many people would inevitably be disenfranchised in a libertarian society, and in the end, the relatively minor injustice of forcibly taking a part of the richer citizen's earnings as taxes is preferable to the major injustice of people starving or dying from easily preventable diseases because of a stroke of bad luck, which those taxes remedy.
It's not perfect, but then nothing is, so you have to fall back to utilitarianism to figure out the most optimal point.So here I am, now earning quite a bit for myself - definitely enough so that supporting libertarian ideology would very likely make sense for me in strictly monetary terms - and yet, by my political views, I am now left-centre by European measure, and rather far left on the U.S spectrum (left of Obama, that's for sure).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849817</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256328480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure the roads are a federal government task for most libertarians. Roads can be provided without the federal government, so it does not fit well within the minimalist approach to government intrusion on liberty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure the roads are a federal government task for most libertarians .
Roads can be provided without the federal government , so it does not fit well within the minimalist approach to government intrusion on liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure the roads are a federal government task for most libertarians.
Roads can be provided without the federal government, so it does not fit well within the minimalist approach to government intrusion on liberty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849323</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256326500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it has more to do with the question than the answer.</p><p>No one gives a shit that you can't see it happening any other way.  I can't tell you how it would have happened differently, but I can tell you that things would have happened, and the end result would be different.  You know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because things would have changed.</p><p>Your test is retarded.  You can't change history and expect the results to be the same, change, by definition, is different than the original.</p><p>But on a different note, you go on thinking about how cool you are that people don't bother arguing with you over retarded political crap on the Internet.  Maybe next year it'll be a special olympics event so you can talk to more people with your problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it has more to do with the question than the answer.No one gives a shit that you ca n't see it happening any other way .
I ca n't tell you how it would have happened differently , but I can tell you that things would have happened , and the end result would be different .
You know ... because things would have changed.Your test is retarded .
You ca n't change history and expect the results to be the same , change , by definition , is different than the original.But on a different note , you go on thinking about how cool you are that people do n't bother arguing with you over retarded political crap on the Internet .
Maybe next year it 'll be a special olympics event so you can talk to more people with your problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it has more to do with the question than the answer.No one gives a shit that you can't see it happening any other way.
I can't tell you how it would have happened differently, but I can tell you that things would have happened, and the end result would be different.
You know ... because things would have changed.Your test is retarded.
You can't change history and expect the results to be the same, change, by definition, is different than the original.But on a different note, you go on thinking about how cool you are that people don't bother arguing with you over retarded political crap on the Internet.
Maybe next year it'll be a special olympics event so you can talk to more people with your problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849145</id>
	<title>On libertarianism&amp;Oblig FSP, Reason Magazine L</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thread really demonstrates how narrowly most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ers view libertarianism, which isn't surprising considering the recent antics of the national LP like nominating that fraud Bob Barr and the ridiculous wikipedia article. As a voluntaryist/anarchist/"little l" libertarian, I'd like to point out that the philosophy of individual liberty requires as an absolute, the respect of everyone else's liberty first and foremost, provided they are not harming anyone or anyone's property (generally speaking. discussions on property rights abound. libertarians would never oppose voluntary communes, etc. as long as violence is not used to force others to participate). This boils down to the <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html" title="lewrockwell.com" rel="nofollow">non-aggression principle</a> [lewrockwell.com]. Because of this ultimately respectfully pacifist ethos, most libertarians do not actively seek to suppress fringe speech or otherwise interfere with the nonviolent activities of other individuals. This does not mean that they agree with said (often crazy) speech. For instance, I've never even heard of the Heartland Institute, nor any of the other allegedly-libertarian organizations or individuals referenced in TFA for attacking free software. Free software is incredibly libertarian, though telling me how I can or cannot prioritize traffic on my network is not. My customers are not forced to remain so.</p><p>People interested in individual liberty should check out <a href="http://www.freestateproject.org/intro" title="freestateproject.org" rel="nofollow">The Free State Project</a> [freestateproject.org] and <a href="http://reason.com/" title="reason.com" rel="nofollow">Reason Magazine</a> [reason.com]. For fun, check out <a href="http://freetalklive.com/" title="freetalklive.com" rel="nofollow">Free Talk Live</a> [freetalklive.com], a liberty-oriented radio show that takes calls on absolutely any subject and reports regularly on the FSP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread really demonstrates how narrowly most / .
'ers view libertarianism , which is n't surprising considering the recent antics of the national LP like nominating that fraud Bob Barr and the ridiculous wikipedia article .
As a voluntaryist/anarchist/ " little l " libertarian , I 'd like to point out that the philosophy of individual liberty requires as an absolute , the respect of everyone else 's liberty first and foremost , provided they are not harming anyone or anyone 's property ( generally speaking .
discussions on property rights abound .
libertarians would never oppose voluntary communes , etc .
as long as violence is not used to force others to participate ) .
This boils down to the non-aggression principle [ lewrockwell.com ] .
Because of this ultimately respectfully pacifist ethos , most libertarians do not actively seek to suppress fringe speech or otherwise interfere with the nonviolent activities of other individuals .
This does not mean that they agree with said ( often crazy ) speech .
For instance , I 've never even heard of the Heartland Institute , nor any of the other allegedly-libertarian organizations or individuals referenced in TFA for attacking free software .
Free software is incredibly libertarian , though telling me how I can or can not prioritize traffic on my network is not .
My customers are not forced to remain so.People interested in individual liberty should check out The Free State Project [ freestateproject.org ] and Reason Magazine [ reason.com ] .
For fun , check out Free Talk Live [ freetalklive.com ] , a liberty-oriented radio show that takes calls on absolutely any subject and reports regularly on the FSP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread really demonstrates how narrowly most /.
'ers view libertarianism, which isn't surprising considering the recent antics of the national LP like nominating that fraud Bob Barr and the ridiculous wikipedia article.
As a voluntaryist/anarchist/"little l" libertarian, I'd like to point out that the philosophy of individual liberty requires as an absolute, the respect of everyone else's liberty first and foremost, provided they are not harming anyone or anyone's property (generally speaking.
discussions on property rights abound.
libertarians would never oppose voluntary communes, etc.
as long as violence is not used to force others to participate).
This boils down to the non-aggression principle [lewrockwell.com].
Because of this ultimately respectfully pacifist ethos, most libertarians do not actively seek to suppress fringe speech or otherwise interfere with the nonviolent activities of other individuals.
This does not mean that they agree with said (often crazy) speech.
For instance, I've never even heard of the Heartland Institute, nor any of the other allegedly-libertarian organizations or individuals referenced in TFA for attacking free software.
Free software is incredibly libertarian, though telling me how I can or cannot prioritize traffic on my network is not.
My customers are not forced to remain so.People interested in individual liberty should check out The Free State Project [freestateproject.org] and Reason Magazine [reason.com].
For fun, check out Free Talk Live [freetalklive.com], a liberty-oriented radio show that takes calls on absolutely any subject and reports regularly on the FSP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850399</id>
	<title>if only everyone acted like ME!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256330760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>libertarians are children.  their view of the world is as much a fantasy land as communists.  both philosophies are in direct opposition of how people act in the real world and how the physical world behaves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>libertarians are children .
their view of the world is as much a fantasy land as communists .
both philosophies are in direct opposition of how people act in the real world and how the physical world behaves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>libertarians are children.
their view of the world is as much a fantasy land as communists.
both philosophies are in direct opposition of how people act in the real world and how the physical world behaves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850647</id>
	<title>Ignorance of economics abounds</title>
	<author>rgcombs</author>
	<datestamp>1256288460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, there sure are a lot of comments by economic illiterates and leftists (but I repeat myself), not to mention people who know nothing about libertarianism.

At least someone finally got around to mentioning ESR, who is not only a libertarian, but an anarcho-libertarian.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , there sure are a lot of comments by economic illiterates and leftists ( but I repeat myself ) , not to mention people who know nothing about libertarianism .
At least someone finally got around to mentioning ESR , who is not only a libertarian , but an anarcho-libertarian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, there sure are a lot of comments by economic illiterates and leftists (but I repeat myself), not to mention people who know nothing about libertarianism.
At least someone finally got around to mentioning ESR, who is not only a libertarian, but an anarcho-libertarian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852403</id>
	<title>"Nuts in the crowd"</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1256296980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory."</p><p>I like libertarian philiosophy myself, but the nuts in the crowd can't understand that markets/politics is a synthesis of human psychology and behaviors perturbed by random events, and doesn't have some underlying grand unified theory like physics.   Real life has, and always will be, a muddle.</p></div><p>Do you know <i>anything</i> about free market economic theory? The Austrian school? Von Mises?<br>A central tennent of their ideas was that economies were driven more by human needs, wants, and psychology, than by calculations and economic theories. Guys like Mises and Milton Friedman had such a hard time being heard at first precisely because they <i>de-emphasized</i> things like mathematical theories. An Invisible Hand, after all, is hard to quantify, is it not?</p><p>Your Reagan quote in particular is telling, as it was directed at left-leaning economists of the 70's that just couldn't understand how stagflation could exist. After all, Keynesian theory stated that the very concept was impossible. Their models said so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory .
" I like libertarian philiosophy myself , but the nuts in the crowd ca n't understand that markets/politics is a synthesis of human psychology and behaviors perturbed by random events , and does n't have some underlying grand unified theory like physics .
Real life has , and always will be , a muddle.Do you know anything about free market economic theory ?
The Austrian school ?
Von Mises ? A central tennent of their ideas was that economies were driven more by human needs , wants , and psychology , than by calculations and economic theories .
Guys like Mises and Milton Friedman had such a hard time being heard at first precisely because they de-emphasized things like mathematical theories .
An Invisible Hand , after all , is hard to quantify , is it not ? Your Reagan quote in particular is telling , as it was directed at left-leaning economists of the 70 's that just could n't understand how stagflation could exist .
After all , Keynesian theory stated that the very concept was impossible .
Their models said so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory.
"I like libertarian philiosophy myself, but the nuts in the crowd can't understand that markets/politics is a synthesis of human psychology and behaviors perturbed by random events, and doesn't have some underlying grand unified theory like physics.
Real life has, and always will be, a muddle.Do you know anything about free market economic theory?
The Austrian school?
Von Mises?A central tennent of their ideas was that economies were driven more by human needs, wants, and psychology, than by calculations and economic theories.
Guys like Mises and Milton Friedman had such a hard time being heard at first precisely because they de-emphasized things like mathematical theories.
An Invisible Hand, after all, is hard to quantify, is it not?Your Reagan quote in particular is telling, as it was directed at left-leaning economists of the 70's that just couldn't understand how stagflation could exist.
After all, Keynesian theory stated that the very concept was impossible.
Their models said so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847585</id>
	<title>Re:Please Read My Blog</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1256320440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called astroturfing, and it's annoying, and I don't do it.  Either contribute to the site you're a member of, or don't.  I fucking hate bloggers... ugh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called astroturfing , and it 's annoying , and I do n't do it .
Either contribute to the site you 're a member of , or do n't .
I fucking hate bloggers... ugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called astroturfing, and it's annoying, and I don't do it.
Either contribute to the site you're a member of, or don't.
I fucking hate bloggers... ugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852565</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Bottlemaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256298180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you must be new here.  Or you're not from the States.<br>More often than not, regulation is a tool used by big corporations to raise barriers of entry and to drive out smaller competitors.  Big corporations LOVE regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you must be new here .
Or you 're not from the States.More often than not , regulation is a tool used by big corporations to raise barriers of entry and to drive out smaller competitors .
Big corporations LOVE regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you must be new here.
Or you're not from the States.More often than not, regulation is a tool used by big corporations to raise barriers of entry and to drive out smaller competitors.
Big corporations LOVE regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849413</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>starfliz</author>
	<datestamp>1256326860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what is the difference?<br> <br>

If we are equal and I am free to do something then so are you?  Its odd that you think that the pronoun matters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is the difference ?
If we are equal and I am free to do something then so are you ?
Its odd that you think that the pronoun matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is the difference?
If we are equal and I am free to do something then so are you?
Its odd that you think that the pronoun matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256294160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, but many if not most libertarians do not. They accept intellectual property and thus destroy any chance they ever had of putting a cohesive philosophy behind their aims. Which is sad, because they are right about pretty much everything.</p><p>The exact same property rights that apply to tangible products of human labor apply to intangible products of human labor. But that is a right to <i>enjoy</i>, not a right to <i>control</i>. For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus <i>includes</i> a right to control. But the right to control is not fundamental. For intangible goods, which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity, a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them. But their enjoyment does not require control, because intangible goods, once conceived, can never be made unavailable to their creator. Erasing memories would be a monumental crime, for this very reason. And stealing intangible goods fixed in tangible media from their rightful owners is wrong under both sets of rights.</p><p><b>But why doesn't the right to enjoy include enjoyment of the market value of the intangible good?</b> Because market value is not an attribute of a thing. Nor is selling an activity. Market value is a circumstance, and selling is an event. What you have a right to enjoyment of, as the owner of any good (tangible or intangible) is only the thing itself, and <i>its</i> attributes. This includes the right to <i>offer</i> the good up for sale, which <i>is</i> an activity. When someone else offers to buy (also an activity), then you have a sale, which is an event. So, you have the right to offer up for sale the original, previously-undisclosed score of a symphony you composed; the right to offer up audio copies of productions of the symphony; the right to offer up the the desk that you wrote it on. You do <i>not</i> have a right to demand that no one else do the same, except in the case of the desk and of the audio copies that are fixed in a storage medium - because for someone else to sell them would deprive you of the right to enjoy them, they being intrinsically scarce.</p><p>So it falls out that, if you wish to get good value for your labor in composing a symphony, you had better be paid for the labor itself. Either prior to the labor, or else under a contract that you are in a position to enforce effectively. The writers of our constitution understood this, which is why they defended intellectual property not as a right, but as a limited monopoly bestowed to the creator, not directly for his or her own benefit, but rather for the benefit of society as a whole. The benefit to the creator was merely part of the mechanism. Now, a good, principled libertarian ought to reject what the framers did here: creating monopolies for the greater good? No thanks, we'll take our chances with economic freedom. But at least they wrote bad law on a good understanding of property rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , but many if not most libertarians do not .
They accept intellectual property and thus destroy any chance they ever had of putting a cohesive philosophy behind their aims .
Which is sad , because they are right about pretty much everything.The exact same property rights that apply to tangible products of human labor apply to intangible products of human labor .
But that is a right to enjoy , not a right to control .
For tangible products , which are intrinsically scarce , a right to enjoy demands a right to control , and thus includes a right to control .
But the right to control is not fundamental .
For intangible goods , which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity , a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them .
But their enjoyment does not require control , because intangible goods , once conceived , can never be made unavailable to their creator .
Erasing memories would be a monumental crime , for this very reason .
And stealing intangible goods fixed in tangible media from their rightful owners is wrong under both sets of rights.But why does n't the right to enjoy include enjoyment of the market value of the intangible good ?
Because market value is not an attribute of a thing .
Nor is selling an activity .
Market value is a circumstance , and selling is an event .
What you have a right to enjoyment of , as the owner of any good ( tangible or intangible ) is only the thing itself , and its attributes .
This includes the right to offer the good up for sale , which is an activity .
When someone else offers to buy ( also an activity ) , then you have a sale , which is an event .
So , you have the right to offer up for sale the original , previously-undisclosed score of a symphony you composed ; the right to offer up audio copies of productions of the symphony ; the right to offer up the the desk that you wrote it on .
You do not have a right to demand that no one else do the same , except in the case of the desk and of the audio copies that are fixed in a storage medium - because for someone else to sell them would deprive you of the right to enjoy them , they being intrinsically scarce.So it falls out that , if you wish to get good value for your labor in composing a symphony , you had better be paid for the labor itself .
Either prior to the labor , or else under a contract that you are in a position to enforce effectively .
The writers of our constitution understood this , which is why they defended intellectual property not as a right , but as a limited monopoly bestowed to the creator , not directly for his or her own benefit , but rather for the benefit of society as a whole .
The benefit to the creator was merely part of the mechanism .
Now , a good , principled libertarian ought to reject what the framers did here : creating monopolies for the greater good ?
No thanks , we 'll take our chances with economic freedom .
But at least they wrote bad law on a good understanding of property rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, but many if not most libertarians do not.
They accept intellectual property and thus destroy any chance they ever had of putting a cohesive philosophy behind their aims.
Which is sad, because they are right about pretty much everything.The exact same property rights that apply to tangible products of human labor apply to intangible products of human labor.
But that is a right to enjoy, not a right to control.
For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus includes a right to control.
But the right to control is not fundamental.
For intangible goods, which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity, a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them.
But their enjoyment does not require control, because intangible goods, once conceived, can never be made unavailable to their creator.
Erasing memories would be a monumental crime, for this very reason.
And stealing intangible goods fixed in tangible media from their rightful owners is wrong under both sets of rights.But why doesn't the right to enjoy include enjoyment of the market value of the intangible good?
Because market value is not an attribute of a thing.
Nor is selling an activity.
Market value is a circumstance, and selling is an event.
What you have a right to enjoyment of, as the owner of any good (tangible or intangible) is only the thing itself, and its attributes.
This includes the right to offer the good up for sale, which is an activity.
When someone else offers to buy (also an activity), then you have a sale, which is an event.
So, you have the right to offer up for sale the original, previously-undisclosed score of a symphony you composed; the right to offer up audio copies of productions of the symphony; the right to offer up the the desk that you wrote it on.
You do not have a right to demand that no one else do the same, except in the case of the desk and of the audio copies that are fixed in a storage medium - because for someone else to sell them would deprive you of the right to enjoy them, they being intrinsically scarce.So it falls out that, if you wish to get good value for your labor in composing a symphony, you had better be paid for the labor itself.
Either prior to the labor, or else under a contract that you are in a position to enforce effectively.
The writers of our constitution understood this, which is why they defended intellectual property not as a right, but as a limited monopoly bestowed to the creator, not directly for his or her own benefit, but rather for the benefit of society as a whole.
The benefit to the creator was merely part of the mechanism.
Now, a good, principled libertarian ought to reject what the framers did here: creating monopolies for the greater good?
No thanks, we'll take our chances with economic freedom.
But at least they wrote bad law on a good understanding of property rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847811</id>
	<title>And libertarians are...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rent seeking douchebags.  Of course they hate free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rent seeking douchebags .
Of course they hate free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rent seeking douchebags.
Of course they hate free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847835</id>
	<title>testing is the key</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1256321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think political parties should protect their brands better. They should demand that anyone professing  at least understands the basic tenets of that philosophy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think political parties should protect their brands better .
They should demand that anyone professing at least understands the basic tenets of that philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think political parties should protect their brands better.
They should demand that anyone professing  at least understands the basic tenets of that philosophy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29857203</id>
	<title>A real libertarian wouldn't question FOSS right</title>
	<author>Glasswire</author>
	<datestamp>1256404080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as any real libertartian would not feel you or I have any business telling another whether they should work on fixing a friend's roof for free (even though a commercial entity loses business), a real libertarian wouldn't deny the right of anyone to create and support software that they give away. Nor would they try to argue the creator cannot set the terms under which they give it away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as any real libertartian would not feel you or I have any business telling another whether they should work on fixing a friend 's roof for free ( even though a commercial entity loses business ) , a real libertarian would n't deny the right of anyone to create and support software that they give away .
Nor would they try to argue the creator can not set the terms under which they give it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as any real libertartian would not feel you or I have any business telling another whether they should work on fixing a friend's roof for free (even though a commercial entity loses business), a real libertarian wouldn't deny the right of anyone to create and support software that they give away.
Nor would they try to argue the creator cannot set the terms under which they give it away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849099</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarian / Laissez Faire / Free Market</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256325720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the last:</p><p>Reality: The Free market effectively because it is composed of people who individually believe in one or more of the above, and the balance of all 3 of these and several others combine together to produce competition and innovation.</p><p>The ignorance is trying to define ONE free market, you tend to destroy the 'free' part with your definition since you confine it and remove the freedom to choose the best approach to the problem.</p><p>Thinking for yourself is hard, lets go shopping!  -- Barbie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the last : Reality : The Free market effectively because it is composed of people who individually believe in one or more of the above , and the balance of all 3 of these and several others combine together to produce competition and innovation.The ignorance is trying to define ONE free market , you tend to destroy the 'free ' part with your definition since you confine it and remove the freedom to choose the best approach to the problem.Thinking for yourself is hard , lets go shopping !
-- Barbie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the last:Reality: The Free market effectively because it is composed of people who individually believe in one or more of the above, and the balance of all 3 of these and several others combine together to produce competition and innovation.The ignorance is trying to define ONE free market, you tend to destroy the 'free' part with your definition since you confine it and remove the freedom to choose the best approach to the problem.Thinking for yourself is hard, lets go shopping!
-- Barbie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851275</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256290800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps, with no real innovation or market competition. "</p><p>Rarely have I read a more egregious pile of nonsense.</p><p>Big government causes big corporations which leads to market inefficiencies?   What?</p><p>First of all, the more powerful governments are, the more powerful regulation is which *limits* the power and size of corporate power.  Let's not forget that Government *represents* the People.  Zero marks for electing idiots though...as Americans you should be taking responsibility for making sure your elected representatives do what you want them to.</p><p>Secondly, the fact that massive corporations have "no real {incentive to} innovation"  and distort "market competition" should be encouraging so-called "Libertarians" towards greater government regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Big , bloated , inefficient government leads to big , bloated , inefficient corps , with no real innovation or market competition .
" Rarely have I read a more egregious pile of nonsense.Big government causes big corporations which leads to market inefficiencies ?
What ? First of all , the more powerful governments are , the more powerful regulation is which * limits * the power and size of corporate power .
Let 's not forget that Government * represents * the People .
Zero marks for electing idiots though...as Americans you should be taking responsibility for making sure your elected representatives do what you want them to.Secondly , the fact that massive corporations have " no real { incentive to } innovation " and distort " market competition " should be encouraging so-called " Libertarians " towards greater government regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps, with no real innovation or market competition.
"Rarely have I read a more egregious pile of nonsense.Big government causes big corporations which leads to market inefficiencies?
What?First of all, the more powerful governments are, the more powerful regulation is which *limits* the power and size of corporate power.
Let's not forget that Government *represents* the People.
Zero marks for electing idiots though...as Americans you should be taking responsibility for making sure your elected representatives do what you want them to.Secondly, the fact that massive corporations have "no real {incentive to} innovation"  and distort "market competition" should be encouraging so-called "Libertarians" towards greater government regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853089</id>
	<title>Re:"Nuts in the crowd"</title>
	<author>MetricT</author>
	<datestamp>1256303340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Do you know anything about free market economic theory? The Austrian school? Von Mises?</p><p>Other than getting a MBA and spending every spare moment of the past 18 months reading every economics textbook and blog I could get my hands on to see if I wanted to get a Ph.D. in the field, no, I don't know anything about economics...</p><p>&gt; After all, Keynesian theory stated that the very concept was impossible. Their models said so.</p><p>And Pure Libertarianism must be the answer.  *Your* model says so.  Note you have the same bias.</p><p>I don't hate libertarian philosophy, in fact I lean heavily in that direction.  But libertarianism is a *model* of human behaviour, and suffers from edge cases and a range of validity.   You don't see physics students running around assuming the world is *really* made of infinite square wells, infinite planes, etc.   Those are simplifications to arrive at an approximation to physical behaviour.  Such is libertarianism too.   It's a good idea but can be taken too far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Do you know anything about free market economic theory ?
The Austrian school ?
Von Mises ? Other than getting a MBA and spending every spare moment of the past 18 months reading every economics textbook and blog I could get my hands on to see if I wanted to get a Ph.D. in the field , no , I do n't know anything about economics... &gt; After all , Keynesian theory stated that the very concept was impossible .
Their models said so.And Pure Libertarianism must be the answer .
* Your * model says so .
Note you have the same bias.I do n't hate libertarian philosophy , in fact I lean heavily in that direction .
But libertarianism is a * model * of human behaviour , and suffers from edge cases and a range of validity .
You do n't see physics students running around assuming the world is * really * made of infinite square wells , infinite planes , etc .
Those are simplifications to arrive at an approximation to physical behaviour .
Such is libertarianism too .
It 's a good idea but can be taken too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Do you know anything about free market economic theory?
The Austrian school?
Von Mises?Other than getting a MBA and spending every spare moment of the past 18 months reading every economics textbook and blog I could get my hands on to see if I wanted to get a Ph.D. in the field, no, I don't know anything about economics...&gt; After all, Keynesian theory stated that the very concept was impossible.
Their models said so.And Pure Libertarianism must be the answer.
*Your* model says so.
Note you have the same bias.I don't hate libertarian philosophy, in fact I lean heavily in that direction.
But libertarianism is a *model* of human behaviour, and suffers from edge cases and a range of validity.
You don't see physics students running around assuming the world is *really* made of infinite square wells, infinite planes, etc.
Those are simplifications to arrive at an approximation to physical behaviour.
Such is libertarianism too.
It's a good idea but can be taken too far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852493</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1256297700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument fails. Try studying history rather than economic mythology.</p><p>It is not in business's best interest to compete by giving the lowest price; it is in business's best interest to negotiate agreements and form trusts with each other to charge the highest price thereby maximizing profits.</p><p>So if Comcast charges you to access Google, its also in the AT&amp;Ts best interest form a trust with them and to charge the same thing; perhaps even merging to form CA&amp;TT thereby reducing costs while maintaining control. Its also in their best interest to charge smaller peers exorbitant rates to peer with them in order for you to send and receive emails from your friends who are with them.</p><p>If you really think your Libertarian ideas are good for the average consumer, you should do some research on Laissez-faire and the realities of that. Because your Libertarian economic utopia is a myth and a screwup that brought about the Progressive Era.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument fails .
Try studying history rather than economic mythology.It is not in business 's best interest to compete by giving the lowest price ; it is in business 's best interest to negotiate agreements and form trusts with each other to charge the highest price thereby maximizing profits.So if Comcast charges you to access Google , its also in the AT&amp;Ts best interest form a trust with them and to charge the same thing ; perhaps even merging to form CA&amp;TT thereby reducing costs while maintaining control .
Its also in their best interest to charge smaller peers exorbitant rates to peer with them in order for you to send and receive emails from your friends who are with them.If you really think your Libertarian ideas are good for the average consumer , you should do some research on Laissez-faire and the realities of that .
Because your Libertarian economic utopia is a myth and a screwup that brought about the Progressive Era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument fails.
Try studying history rather than economic mythology.It is not in business's best interest to compete by giving the lowest price; it is in business's best interest to negotiate agreements and form trusts with each other to charge the highest price thereby maximizing profits.So if Comcast charges you to access Google, its also in the AT&amp;Ts best interest form a trust with them and to charge the same thing; perhaps even merging to form CA&amp;TT thereby reducing costs while maintaining control.
Its also in their best interest to charge smaller peers exorbitant rates to peer with them in order for you to send and receive emails from your friends who are with them.If you really think your Libertarian ideas are good for the average consumer, you should do some research on Laissez-faire and the realities of that.
Because your Libertarian economic utopia is a myth and a screwup that brought about the Progressive Era.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29863137</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1256465580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what they call a moderate libertarian?</p><p>A pinko commie!  No compromising on personal liberties, dammit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what they call a moderate libertarian ? A pinko commie !
No compromising on personal liberties , dammit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what they call a moderate libertarian?A pinko commie!
No compromising on personal liberties, dammit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850597</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Libertarian\_Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1256331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I concur.  Liberty for people &amp; liberty for software (free or free-marked).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur .
Liberty for people &amp; liberty for software ( free or free-marked ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur.
Liberty for people &amp; liberty for software (free or free-marked).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847729</id>
	<title>Lakely is confused...</title>
	<author>bug</author>
	<datestamp>1256320980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Libertarians are generally against government intervention and manipulation of the free market economy.  What could be more manipulative than the coercive force of the federal government, providing government-sanctioned monopolies in the forms of patents and copyrights to rent-seeking entrenched industries?  Those monopolies arbitrarily increase the costs of goods and services to individuals and other businesses, and they also have the strong potential of interfering with our constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.  Assuming they support "intellectual property" at all, most libertarians would require very high standards of proof of innovativeness before passing out such power, and would limit their scope and duration to the bare minimum "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," as stated in our Constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians are generally against government intervention and manipulation of the free market economy .
What could be more manipulative than the coercive force of the federal government , providing government-sanctioned monopolies in the forms of patents and copyrights to rent-seeking entrenched industries ?
Those monopolies arbitrarily increase the costs of goods and services to individuals and other businesses , and they also have the strong potential of interfering with our constitutional rights , such as freedom of speech .
Assuming they support " intellectual property " at all , most libertarians would require very high standards of proof of innovativeness before passing out such power , and would limit their scope and duration to the bare minimum " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , " as stated in our Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians are generally against government intervention and manipulation of the free market economy.
What could be more manipulative than the coercive force of the federal government, providing government-sanctioned monopolies in the forms of patents and copyrights to rent-seeking entrenched industries?
Those monopolies arbitrarily increase the costs of goods and services to individuals and other businesses, and they also have the strong potential of interfering with our constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech.
Assuming they support "intellectual property" at all, most libertarians would require very high standards of proof of innovativeness before passing out such power, and would limit their scope and duration to the bare minimum "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," as stated in our Constitution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849533</id>
	<title>raison d'etre of this dicotomy:</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1256327340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When these networks accept government subsities, they should be governed by a policy of net neutrality.

The problem exists beacuse government should not subsidize these networks. Without subsidies, these are private entities that provide a service on their own terms. Therefore, there ought not be any forcing of net neutrality upon them.

Libertarians should qualify their statements based on existing facts. In the current situation, there should be net neutrality.
But if the situation wasn't screwed up, there should be no interference between two lawful parties exchanging money for service that doesn't have any negative externalities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When these networks accept government subsities , they should be governed by a policy of net neutrality .
The problem exists beacuse government should not subsidize these networks .
Without subsidies , these are private entities that provide a service on their own terms .
Therefore , there ought not be any forcing of net neutrality upon them .
Libertarians should qualify their statements based on existing facts .
In the current situation , there should be net neutrality .
But if the situation was n't screwed up , there should be no interference between two lawful parties exchanging money for service that does n't have any negative externalities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When these networks accept government subsities, they should be governed by a policy of net neutrality.
The problem exists beacuse government should not subsidize these networks.
Without subsidies, these are private entities that provide a service on their own terms.
Therefore, there ought not be any forcing of net neutrality upon them.
Libertarians should qualify their statements based on existing facts.
In the current situation, there should be net neutrality.
But if the situation wasn't screwed up, there should be no interference between two lawful parties exchanging money for service that doesn't have any negative externalities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851609</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1256292060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>The true libertarian solution would be to abolish copyright altogether.</i>"</p><p>Not even close. Copyright is a form of property rights, and Libertarians of all stripes... from Rand's Objectivists to the Austrian School people... place property rights as the most precious of liberties. A Libertarian would no more abolish copyright then he would abolish profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The true libertarian solution would be to abolish copyright altogether .
" Not even close .
Copyright is a form of property rights , and Libertarians of all stripes... from Rand 's Objectivists to the Austrian School people... place property rights as the most precious of liberties .
A Libertarian would no more abolish copyright then he would abolish profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The true libertarian solution would be to abolish copyright altogether.
"Not even close.
Copyright is a form of property rights, and Libertarians of all stripes... from Rand's Objectivists to the Austrian School people... place property rights as the most precious of liberties.
A Libertarian would no more abolish copyright then he would abolish profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852791</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Bottlemaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256300040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just curious: why do you only ask this of big-L Libertarians?  It seems to me that a question along very similar lines would be just as appropriate to real libertarians, though I admit I'm too dense to see the point of this exercise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just curious : why do you only ask this of big-L Libertarians ?
It seems to me that a question along very similar lines would be just as appropriate to real libertarians , though I admit I 'm too dense to see the point of this exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just curious: why do you only ask this of big-L Libertarians?
It seems to me that a question along very similar lines would be just as appropriate to real libertarians, though I admit I'm too dense to see the point of this exercise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848155</id>
	<title>Drudge report coverage</title>
	<author>m93</author>
	<datestamp>1256322360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Drudge Report today has a picture of Julius Caeser with the headline "Julius at FCC wants to regulate Internet".  If you hurry you may catch it before the headline changes

<a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/" title="drudgereport.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.drudgereport.com/</a> [drudgereport.com]

This headline has personally angered me more than any other I can remember. I have been talking with people online and off for the last few years about this issue with great spirit. I have convinced others of my point of view using reason and civil discussion. At length, I have spent time and energy to do this. Now, as the issue heads to it's legislative climax, we finally get a headline about it on one of the most viewed, mainstream news sites in the world (I give it mainstream status due to it's popularity). Up to this point, the issue has been absent from any mass-market coverage. So, that finally happens, and the gateway to this information is labelled with the banter of a political shill who has seized the opportunity to spread propaganda that is aimed squarely at those who would react to such stupidity in the most blind and uninformed manner. Unfortunately, I am not surprised. I can only hope that if the principles of net-neutrality are not adopted, that one day someone decides that Drudge's traffic is "undesirable", or perhaps he is taking in too much revenue, and that physical access to his POV is hampered. Then he may think twice before throwing mindless, blanket ideology over every idea that concerns him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Drudge Report today has a picture of Julius Caeser with the headline " Julius at FCC wants to regulate Internet " .
If you hurry you may catch it before the headline changes http : //www.drudgereport.com/ [ drudgereport.com ] This headline has personally angered me more than any other I can remember .
I have been talking with people online and off for the last few years about this issue with great spirit .
I have convinced others of my point of view using reason and civil discussion .
At length , I have spent time and energy to do this .
Now , as the issue heads to it 's legislative climax , we finally get a headline about it on one of the most viewed , mainstream news sites in the world ( I give it mainstream status due to it 's popularity ) .
Up to this point , the issue has been absent from any mass-market coverage .
So , that finally happens , and the gateway to this information is labelled with the banter of a political shill who has seized the opportunity to spread propaganda that is aimed squarely at those who would react to such stupidity in the most blind and uninformed manner .
Unfortunately , I am not surprised .
I can only hope that if the principles of net-neutrality are not adopted , that one day someone decides that Drudge 's traffic is " undesirable " , or perhaps he is taking in too much revenue , and that physical access to his POV is hampered .
Then he may think twice before throwing mindless , blanket ideology over every idea that concerns him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Drudge Report today has a picture of Julius Caeser with the headline "Julius at FCC wants to regulate Internet".
If you hurry you may catch it before the headline changes

http://www.drudgereport.com/ [drudgereport.com]

This headline has personally angered me more than any other I can remember.
I have been talking with people online and off for the last few years about this issue with great spirit.
I have convinced others of my point of view using reason and civil discussion.
At length, I have spent time and energy to do this.
Now, as the issue heads to it's legislative climax, we finally get a headline about it on one of the most viewed, mainstream news sites in the world (I give it mainstream status due to it's popularity).
Up to this point, the issue has been absent from any mass-market coverage.
So, that finally happens, and the gateway to this information is labelled with the banter of a political shill who has seized the opportunity to spread propaganda that is aimed squarely at those who would react to such stupidity in the most blind and uninformed manner.
Unfortunately, I am not surprised.
I can only hope that if the principles of net-neutrality are not adopted, that one day someone decides that Drudge's traffic is "undesirable", or perhaps he is taking in too much revenue, and that physical access to his POV is hampered.
Then he may think twice before throwing mindless, blanket ideology over every idea that concerns him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851045</id>
	<title>Hi, I'm a Libertarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256289960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are generally opposed to the "for the public good" Ubuntu philosophy that is at the heart of your movement. Ultimately, open source could threaten the free market if it grabbed monopoly status, stifling innovation.</p><p>It's fine now, when you have people to compete with in Redmond and Cupertino, but if most free software fans had their way, this competition wouldn't exist. The world would be 100\% free software. After all, Redmond is "exploiting" the "unwashed masses", not trading value for value.</p><p>Microsoft and Apple provide consumers - the market - what they want, and are successful for it.</p><p>Canonical makes something that works in the way Canonical wants it to work, not consumers, and wonders why it has to run crying to Mark Shuttleworth for bailouts.</p><p>Newsflash: most free software sucks compared to its competitors.<br>Case and point: OpenOffice.org as compared to Office 2007 or iWork 08.<br>Or MySQL versus... well, pretty much any other DBMS, actually.</p><p>Bring on the flames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are generally opposed to the " for the public good " Ubuntu philosophy that is at the heart of your movement .
Ultimately , open source could threaten the free market if it grabbed monopoly status , stifling innovation.It 's fine now , when you have people to compete with in Redmond and Cupertino , but if most free software fans had their way , this competition would n't exist .
The world would be 100 \ % free software .
After all , Redmond is " exploiting " the " unwashed masses " , not trading value for value.Microsoft and Apple provide consumers - the market - what they want , and are successful for it.Canonical makes something that works in the way Canonical wants it to work , not consumers , and wonders why it has to run crying to Mark Shuttleworth for bailouts.Newsflash : most free software sucks compared to its competitors.Case and point : OpenOffice.org as compared to Office 2007 or iWork 08.Or MySQL versus... well , pretty much any other DBMS , actually.Bring on the flames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are generally opposed to the "for the public good" Ubuntu philosophy that is at the heart of your movement.
Ultimately, open source could threaten the free market if it grabbed monopoly status, stifling innovation.It's fine now, when you have people to compete with in Redmond and Cupertino, but if most free software fans had their way, this competition wouldn't exist.
The world would be 100\% free software.
After all, Redmond is "exploiting" the "unwashed masses", not trading value for value.Microsoft and Apple provide consumers - the market - what they want, and are successful for it.Canonical makes something that works in the way Canonical wants it to work, not consumers, and wonders why it has to run crying to Mark Shuttleworth for bailouts.Newsflash: most free software sucks compared to its competitors.Case and point: OpenOffice.org as compared to Office 2007 or iWork 08.Or MySQL versus... well, pretty much any other DBMS, actually.Bring on the flames.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243</id>
	<title>Libertarian that likes free software</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1256319000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It serves my own purposes. As a developer I am not interested in licensing and IP. That kind of crap is for big corporations. My interests lie in being a paid expert where I go from one company to another and get paid to integrate or fix their free software based products. For small indepedent businesspeople, free software is a major asset. We can share the non-competitive aspects of the software. Operating systems, webservers, etc are all commodities. The important bits are where they are configured and customized for a businesses' needs, rather than licensing the software itself.</p><p>Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism. It's the small guy capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It serves my own purposes .
As a developer I am not interested in licensing and IP .
That kind of crap is for big corporations .
My interests lie in being a paid expert where I go from one company to another and get paid to integrate or fix their free software based products .
For small indepedent businesspeople , free software is a major asset .
We can share the non-competitive aspects of the software .
Operating systems , webservers , etc are all commodities .
The important bits are where they are configured and customized for a businesses ' needs , rather than licensing the software itself.Free software is n't socialism , it 's the new capitalism .
It 's the small guy capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It serves my own purposes.
As a developer I am not interested in licensing and IP.
That kind of crap is for big corporations.
My interests lie in being a paid expert where I go from one company to another and get paid to integrate or fix their free software based products.
For small indepedent businesspeople, free software is a major asset.
We can share the non-competitive aspects of the software.
Operating systems, webservers, etc are all commodities.
The important bits are where they are configured and customized for a businesses' needs, rather than licensing the software itself.Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism.
It's the small guy capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847809</id>
	<title>Re:Please Read My Blog</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1256321340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the article's good, it's good. If it's not, it's not... doesn't matter to me where it's published, or who tells me about it (even if it's the person who wrote it.)</p><p>The real problem is that Slashdot rubber-stamps terrible articles all the time. If they only linked to really good articles on blogs, I doubt anybody would mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the article 's good , it 's good .
If it 's not , it 's not... does n't matter to me where it 's published , or who tells me about it ( even if it 's the person who wrote it .
) The real problem is that Slashdot rubber-stamps terrible articles all the time .
If they only linked to really good articles on blogs , I doubt anybody would mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the article's good, it's good.
If it's not, it's not... doesn't matter to me where it's published, or who tells me about it (even if it's the person who wrote it.
)The real problem is that Slashdot rubber-stamps terrible articles all the time.
If they only linked to really good articles on blogs, I doubt anybody would mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847543</id>
	<title>Hear, hear!</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256320260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libertarianism in the tradition of Ann Rand is about promoting the value of competence by allowing the competent to benefit from their work. Regulations that prevent competition should be regarded as destructive and unnecessary. A libertarian viewpoint should generally be unfavorable towards anti-competitive collusion within an industry in addition to anti-competitive government regulation. I would argue that net neutrality seeks to prevent exactly that.</p><p>The developers of OSS are developing for their own enjoyment and advancement. They don't ask for special consideration or subsidies. They meet whiny neediness on the part of users with disdain (RTFM!) and usually come across as selfish and competent in the finest tradition of the Rand libertarian ideal. Net neutrality isn't an artificial way to restrict the success of corporate developers by preventing competition; it promotes competition by preventing anti-competitive dealings between the content creation and content distribution sides of the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarianism in the tradition of Ann Rand is about promoting the value of competence by allowing the competent to benefit from their work .
Regulations that prevent competition should be regarded as destructive and unnecessary .
A libertarian viewpoint should generally be unfavorable towards anti-competitive collusion within an industry in addition to anti-competitive government regulation .
I would argue that net neutrality seeks to prevent exactly that.The developers of OSS are developing for their own enjoyment and advancement .
They do n't ask for special consideration or subsidies .
They meet whiny neediness on the part of users with disdain ( RTFM !
) and usually come across as selfish and competent in the finest tradition of the Rand libertarian ideal .
Net neutrality is n't an artificial way to restrict the success of corporate developers by preventing competition ; it promotes competition by preventing anti-competitive dealings between the content creation and content distribution sides of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarianism in the tradition of Ann Rand is about promoting the value of competence by allowing the competent to benefit from their work.
Regulations that prevent competition should be regarded as destructive and unnecessary.
A libertarian viewpoint should generally be unfavorable towards anti-competitive collusion within an industry in addition to anti-competitive government regulation.
I would argue that net neutrality seeks to prevent exactly that.The developers of OSS are developing for their own enjoyment and advancement.
They don't ask for special consideration or subsidies.
They meet whiny neediness on the part of users with disdain (RTFM!
) and usually come across as selfish and competent in the finest tradition of the Rand libertarian ideal.
Net neutrality isn't an artificial way to restrict the success of corporate developers by preventing competition; it promotes competition by preventing anti-competitive dealings between the content creation and content distribution sides of the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848935</id>
	<title>When news for nerds turns into ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256325000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politics by morons.</p><p>Seriously?  Why the fuck is there a front page story written by some guy I've never heard of, spewing his opinions about Libertarians?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics by morons.Seriously ?
Why the fuck is there a front page story written by some guy I 've never heard of , spewing his opinions about Libertarians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics by morons.Seriously?
Why the fuck is there a front page story written by some guy I've never heard of, spewing his opinions about Libertarians?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850273</id>
	<title>Re:Drudge report coverage</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1256330280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Drudge Report today has a picture of Julius Caeser with the headline "Julius at FCC wants to regulate Internet".</p></div><p>A local conservative talk show had someone call in about this very issue.  He identified himself as the husband of an AT&amp;T employee, and that his wife's job will be in jeopardy if net neutrality goes through.  He was calm, collected, and spoke too eloquently to be telling the truth.  Clearly practiced, this AT&amp;T shill seemingly convinced the host that net neutrality was "Obama-czarist" government control over something that should be free-market, not realizing that it's actually government enforcing freedom on a monopoly controlled market.  I wish I hadn't been driving; would have loved to call in and correct him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Drudge Report today has a picture of Julius Caeser with the headline " Julius at FCC wants to regulate Internet " .A local conservative talk show had someone call in about this very issue .
He identified himself as the husband of an AT&amp;T employee , and that his wife 's job will be in jeopardy if net neutrality goes through .
He was calm , collected , and spoke too eloquently to be telling the truth .
Clearly practiced , this AT&amp;T shill seemingly convinced the host that net neutrality was " Obama-czarist " government control over something that should be free-market , not realizing that it 's actually government enforcing freedom on a monopoly controlled market .
I wish I had n't been driving ; would have loved to call in and correct him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Drudge Report today has a picture of Julius Caeser with the headline "Julius at FCC wants to regulate Internet".A local conservative talk show had someone call in about this very issue.
He identified himself as the husband of an AT&amp;T employee, and that his wife's job will be in jeopardy if net neutrality goes through.
He was calm, collected, and spoke too eloquently to be telling the truth.
Clearly practiced, this AT&amp;T shill seemingly convinced the host that net neutrality was "Obama-czarist" government control over something that should be free-market, not realizing that it's actually government enforcing freedom on a monopoly controlled market.
I wish I hadn't been driving; would have loved to call in and correct him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847955</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it does not bear repeating because it is fucking stupid.  I'm sure your liberal media/books/pundits want you to believe that the only path to liberty is more government interference.  Pull your head out of Micheal Moore's crotch for 5 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it does not bear repeating because it is fucking stupid .
I 'm sure your liberal media/books/pundits want you to believe that the only path to liberty is more government interference .
Pull your head out of Micheal Moore 's crotch for 5 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it does not bear repeating because it is fucking stupid.
I'm sure your liberal media/books/pundits want you to believe that the only path to liberty is more government interference.
Pull your head out of Micheal Moore's crotch for 5 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848063</id>
	<title>Re:An old Ronald Reagan quote is still true...</title>
	<author>Moridin42</author>
	<datestamp>1256322120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting.. A quote about economists from a guy who didn't know dick about the economy. Implicitly equating economists with libertarians. And then implying that physics isn't real life. Very curious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting.. A quote about economists from a guy who did n't know dick about the economy .
Implicitly equating economists with libertarians .
And then implying that physics is n't real life .
Very curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.. A quote about economists from a guy who didn't know dick about the economy.
Implicitly equating economists with libertarians.
And then implying that physics isn't real life.
Very curious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848461</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that we were an autonomous collective?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that we were an autonomous collective ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that we were an autonomous collective?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849299</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to point out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything done in a capitalist system is for selfish reasons.</p><p>And let it be known that there is virtue in lawful selfishness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything done in a capitalist system is for selfish reasons.And let it be known that there is virtue in lawful selfishness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything done in a capitalist system is for selfish reasons.And let it be known that there is virtue in lawful selfishness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851685</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1256292420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm not a Libertarian, but I find your question puzzling.
</p><p>
The Internet started with a batch of protocols and a lot of people interested in getting in on a network.  ARPAnet was useful, but not essential.  What I'm not sure about is the actual physical connections, and whether research universities would be possible under a Libertarian government.
</p><p>
The walled gardens were economically unsustainable.  They were pressured by their customers to break out, because there was a lot more to the Net than AOL at its peak.  It's a simple matter of network effects:  the more people who are on a network, the more valuable it becomes.  I don't remember any government action to open them up.
</p><p>
To what extent are current peering economics dictated by government?  I thought it was a framework that a lot of companies came up with.
</p><p>
I do have issues with libertarianism, and believe there's questions it just can't answer, but I don't see that the Internet is one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a Libertarian , but I find your question puzzling .
The Internet started with a batch of protocols and a lot of people interested in getting in on a network .
ARPAnet was useful , but not essential .
What I 'm not sure about is the actual physical connections , and whether research universities would be possible under a Libertarian government .
The walled gardens were economically unsustainable .
They were pressured by their customers to break out , because there was a lot more to the Net than AOL at its peak .
It 's a simple matter of network effects : the more people who are on a network , the more valuable it becomes .
I do n't remember any government action to open them up .
To what extent are current peering economics dictated by government ?
I thought it was a framework that a lot of companies came up with .
I do have issues with libertarianism , and believe there 's questions it just ca n't answer , but I do n't see that the Internet is one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm not a Libertarian, but I find your question puzzling.
The Internet started with a batch of protocols and a lot of people interested in getting in on a network.
ARPAnet was useful, but not essential.
What I'm not sure about is the actual physical connections, and whether research universities would be possible under a Libertarian government.
The walled gardens were economically unsustainable.
They were pressured by their customers to break out, because there was a lot more to the Net than AOL at its peak.
It's a simple matter of network effects:  the more people who are on a network, the more valuable it becomes.
I don't remember any government action to open them up.
To what extent are current peering economics dictated by government?
I thought it was a framework that a lot of companies came up with.
I do have issues with libertarianism, and believe there's questions it just can't answer, but I don't see that the Internet is one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850707</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256288700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Libertarians do not care about giving away software for free they just have a problem with the ideologies of many of the people in the open source community, who tend to favor a cradle to grave from of government.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's impressive.  You stereotype libertarians, free software advocates, developers who release open source software, and liberal and progressive government all in one sentence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians do not care about giving away software for free they just have a problem with the ideologies of many of the people in the open source community , who tend to favor a cradle to grave from of government.That 's impressive .
You stereotype libertarians , free software advocates , developers who release open source software , and liberal and progressive government all in one sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians do not care about giving away software for free they just have a problem with the ideologies of many of the people in the open source community, who tend to favor a cradle to grave from of government.That's impressive.
You stereotype libertarians, free software advocates, developers who release open source software, and liberal and progressive government all in one sentence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848841</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means. The one thing it precisely does <i>not</i> guarantee is liberty.</p></div><p>That reminds me of another quote that also bears repeating and makes just as much sense:</p><p>"Socialism is the carrying out of libertarianism by other means.  The one thing it does not guarantee is society"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote this here years ago , but it bears repeating : Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means .
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.That reminds me of another quote that also bears repeating and makes just as much sense : " Socialism is the carrying out of libertarianism by other means .
The one thing it does not guarantee is society "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means.
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.That reminds me of another quote that also bears repeating and makes just as much sense:"Socialism is the carrying out of libertarianism by other means.
The one thing it does not guarantee is society"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851369</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>flydude18</author>
	<datestamp>1256291160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument against net neutrality would only make sense if the ISPs competed in a free market, which they don't. Like you said, they have been granted regional monopolies by governments. People can't ditch Comcast for Google if the local telco also blocks Google.</p><p>In an already-heavily-regulated market, net neutrality legislation is actually a deregulation. Pairs of ISPs are given ultimate control over entire regions through regulation; net neutrality would undo some of that regulation by restricting the power of the ISPs.</p><p>Your solution for us who are indeed stuck with only two available ISPs is to be screwed until technology advances or regulations disappear (good luck on that second one). That's not really good enough. Net neutrality is regulation, but it benefits individuals at the expense of government-assisted corporations. Your libertarian principles should tell you to be in favor of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument against net neutrality would only make sense if the ISPs competed in a free market , which they do n't .
Like you said , they have been granted regional monopolies by governments .
People ca n't ditch Comcast for Google if the local telco also blocks Google.In an already-heavily-regulated market , net neutrality legislation is actually a deregulation .
Pairs of ISPs are given ultimate control over entire regions through regulation ; net neutrality would undo some of that regulation by restricting the power of the ISPs.Your solution for us who are indeed stuck with only two available ISPs is to be screwed until technology advances or regulations disappear ( good luck on that second one ) .
That 's not really good enough .
Net neutrality is regulation , but it benefits individuals at the expense of government-assisted corporations .
Your libertarian principles should tell you to be in favor of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument against net neutrality would only make sense if the ISPs competed in a free market, which they don't.
Like you said, they have been granted regional monopolies by governments.
People can't ditch Comcast for Google if the local telco also blocks Google.In an already-heavily-regulated market, net neutrality legislation is actually a deregulation.
Pairs of ISPs are given ultimate control over entire regions through regulation; net neutrality would undo some of that regulation by restricting the power of the ISPs.Your solution for us who are indeed stuck with only two available ISPs is to be screwed until technology advances or regulations disappear (good luck on that second one).
That's not really good enough.
Net neutrality is regulation, but it benefits individuals at the expense of government-assisted corporations.
Your libertarian principles should tell you to be in favor of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29992786</id>
	<title>Re:Lakely is not "Libertarians"</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1257420420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is amazing to me that somebody marked this as "Troll". Seems to me it is a reasoned argument against lumping all Libertarians, no matter how radical, into one category, while citing only a single example to support his case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is amazing to me that somebody marked this as " Troll " .
Seems to me it is a reasoned argument against lumping all Libertarians , no matter how radical , into one category , while citing only a single example to support his case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is amazing to me that somebody marked this as "Troll".
Seems to me it is a reasoned argument against lumping all Libertarians, no matter how radical, into one category, while citing only a single example to support his case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850819</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Just Another Poster</author>
	<datestamp>1256289120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can Adam Smith be quoted honestly as being in favor of government regulation, or are all these quotes supposedly in favor of government regulation actually pieces taken out of context or misattributed to Adam Smith? I suspect the latter, since communists and socialists, for instance, have routinely used the technique of pastiche to claim that Adam Smith endorsed something akin to Marx's labor theory of value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can Adam Smith be quoted honestly as being in favor of government regulation , or are all these quotes supposedly in favor of government regulation actually pieces taken out of context or misattributed to Adam Smith ?
I suspect the latter , since communists and socialists , for instance , have routinely used the technique of pastiche to claim that Adam Smith endorsed something akin to Marx 's labor theory of value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can Adam Smith be quoted honestly as being in favor of government regulation, or are all these quotes supposedly in favor of government regulation actually pieces taken out of context or misattributed to Adam Smith?
I suspect the latter, since communists and socialists, for instance, have routinely used the technique of pastiche to claim that Adam Smith endorsed something akin to Marx's labor theory of value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848497</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>mcwop</author>
	<datestamp>1256323740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some guy like Alexander Bell or Samuel Morse comes along and invents it. Someone may have even used valuable wireless spectrum to do it, if it was not mostly reserved by the military.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some guy like Alexander Bell or Samuel Morse comes along and invents it .
Someone may have even used valuable wireless spectrum to do it , if it was not mostly reserved by the military .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some guy like Alexander Bell or Samuel Morse comes along and invents it.
Someone may have even used valuable wireless spectrum to do it, if it was not mostly reserved by the military.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854427</id>
	<title>Re:Ceci n'est pas une pipe</title>
	<author>surement</author>
	<datestamp>1256321460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe no one else has pointed this out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe no one else has pointed this out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe no one else has pointed this out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847367</id>
	<title>I'd just like to point out...</title>
	<author>Thalaric</author>
	<datestamp>1256319480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as a registered libertarian, not everything in a capitalist system is done for profit (just ask the NRA or the EFF). And sometimes even innovation is done for innovation's sake.</p><p>Of course, that software is inherently "information" is what makes this work (avoiding the economic problem of scarcity). "Knowledge" doesn't cost anything to pass on. I think where those right(er) wing libertarians get their signals crossed. They assume that because we currently have an idea of "Intellectual Property" that it is in some way a fundamental freedom. Or that because we currently have corporations that can exist as entities they fundamentally are. These are just assumptions built into our system, not facts. I don't remember reading anything in Locke about intelectual property rights. And I don't see how giving software away for free is anti-capitalist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a registered libertarian , not everything in a capitalist system is done for profit ( just ask the NRA or the EFF ) .
And sometimes even innovation is done for innovation 's sake.Of course , that software is inherently " information " is what makes this work ( avoiding the economic problem of scarcity ) .
" Knowledge " does n't cost anything to pass on .
I think where those right ( er ) wing libertarians get their signals crossed .
They assume that because we currently have an idea of " Intellectual Property " that it is in some way a fundamental freedom .
Or that because we currently have corporations that can exist as entities they fundamentally are .
These are just assumptions built into our system , not facts .
I do n't remember reading anything in Locke about intelectual property rights .
And I do n't see how giving software away for free is anti-capitalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a registered libertarian, not everything in a capitalist system is done for profit (just ask the NRA or the EFF).
And sometimes even innovation is done for innovation's sake.Of course, that software is inherently "information" is what makes this work (avoiding the economic problem of scarcity).
"Knowledge" doesn't cost anything to pass on.
I think where those right(er) wing libertarians get their signals crossed.
They assume that because we currently have an idea of "Intellectual Property" that it is in some way a fundamental freedom.
Or that because we currently have corporations that can exist as entities they fundamentally are.
These are just assumptions built into our system, not facts.
I don't remember reading anything in Locke about intelectual property rights.
And I don't see how giving software away for free is anti-capitalist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29858069</id>
	<title>Re:Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256410560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another moronic libertarian!  You complain about violating the property rights of the network owner, yet you don't seem to have problem violating the property rights of the owners of the land that the privately held network company have strung their cables over and through. It's really bad to impose any sort of restrictions of the network company but it is just fine for the network company to do as they damn please with the land their wires go across. The hell with the property owner, the for profit company reign supreme. When the local cable company decided to lay cable in my neck of the woods, they trenched across my concrete driveway and "repaired" my driveway by putting down asphalt patch which lasted to the next winter. Repair it to it's original condition? No! we are a PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY and have been given license by the government to lay the cable so  you cann't even sue us to get your driveway fixed. Tell me again how the property rights are being violated?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another moronic libertarian !
You complain about violating the property rights of the network owner , yet you do n't seem to have problem violating the property rights of the owners of the land that the privately held network company have strung their cables over and through .
It 's really bad to impose any sort of restrictions of the network company but it is just fine for the network company to do as they damn please with the land their wires go across .
The hell with the property owner , the for profit company reign supreme .
When the local cable company decided to lay cable in my neck of the woods , they trenched across my concrete driveway and " repaired " my driveway by putting down asphalt patch which lasted to the next winter .
Repair it to it 's original condition ?
No ! we are a PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY and have been given license by the government to lay the cable so you can n't even sue us to get your driveway fixed .
Tell me again how the property rights are being violated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another moronic libertarian!
You complain about violating the property rights of the network owner, yet you don't seem to have problem violating the property rights of the owners of the land that the privately held network company have strung their cables over and through.
It's really bad to impose any sort of restrictions of the network company but it is just fine for the network company to do as they damn please with the land their wires go across.
The hell with the property owner, the for profit company reign supreme.
When the local cable company decided to lay cable in my neck of the woods, they trenched across my concrete driveway and "repaired" my driveway by putting down asphalt patch which lasted to the next winter.
Repair it to it's original condition?
No! we are a PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY and have been given license by the government to lay the cable so  you cann't even sue us to get your driveway fixed.
Tell me again how the property rights are being violated?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847475</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1256320020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced. You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal. Copyright is a government interference in the market, using force to set up temporary monopolies. If I understand libertarianism, that's a bad thing. So under the libertarian ideal, there would be no copyright, and so no GNU software</i>
<br>
<br>
I think that's debatable; you might be able to enforce the GPL strictly from a contract standpoint.  It would just be very, very hard to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced .
You ca n't place terms ( such as releasing the source code ) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal .
Copyright is a government interference in the market , using force to set up temporary monopolies .
If I understand libertarianism , that 's a bad thing .
So under the libertarian ideal , there would be no copyright , and so no GNU software I think that 's debatable ; you might be able to enforce the GPL strictly from a contract standpoint .
It would just be very , very hard to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL requires copyright to be enforced.
You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal.
Copyright is a government interference in the market, using force to set up temporary monopolies.
If I understand libertarianism, that's a bad thing.
So under the libertarian ideal, there would be no copyright, and so no GNU software


I think that's debatable; you might be able to enforce the GPL strictly from a contract standpoint.
It would just be very, very hard to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847669</id>
	<title>old customs die hard</title>
	<author>grrrgrrr</author>
	<datestamp>1256320740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext> I thought libertarian and free-market organizations would have disbanded by now because of the bank deregulation and economic catastrophe. These  opinions seem a bit dated and a bit out of touch today.  But I guess there are all kinds of old fashioned ideologies still around like religions but do we really care about what they think of free software? So why do we care here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought libertarian and free-market organizations would have disbanded by now because of the bank deregulation and economic catastrophe .
These opinions seem a bit dated and a bit out of touch today .
But I guess there are all kinds of old fashioned ideologies still around like religions but do we really care about what they think of free software ?
So why do we care here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I thought libertarian and free-market organizations would have disbanded by now because of the bank deregulation and economic catastrophe.
These  opinions seem a bit dated and a bit out of touch today.
But I guess there are all kinds of old fashioned ideologies still around like religions but do we really care about what they think of free software?
So why do we care here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852925</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256301720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you say if they spout some nonsense like "the current Internet *couldn't* have come about under a Libertarian government. It's here now though, and isn't going anywhere - let's tear down the scaffolding of the current suppressive government the way the scaffold of the suppressive British Empire was torn down when no longer needed"</p><p>I've got one of them pulling this on me RIGHT NOW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you say if they spout some nonsense like " the current Internet * could n't * have come about under a Libertarian government .
It 's here now though , and is n't going anywhere - let 's tear down the scaffolding of the current suppressive government the way the scaffold of the suppressive British Empire was torn down when no longer needed " I 've got one of them pulling this on me RIGHT NOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you say if they spout some nonsense like "the current Internet *couldn't* have come about under a Libertarian government.
It's here now though, and isn't going anywhere - let's tear down the scaffolding of the current suppressive government the way the scaffold of the suppressive British Empire was torn down when no longer needed"I've got one of them pulling this on me RIGHT NOW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851991</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1256294040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do monopolies erect barriers to competition?  Simple, they get the government to institute regulations while claiming that they will help to prevent monopolies from forming, even while it is abundantly clear that all monopolies are created thanks to force applied by the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do monopolies erect barriers to competition ?
Simple , they get the government to institute regulations while claiming that they will help to prevent monopolies from forming , even while it is abundantly clear that all monopolies are created thanks to force applied by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do monopolies erect barriers to competition?
Simple, they get the government to institute regulations while claiming that they will help to prevent monopolies from forming, even while it is abundantly clear that all monopolies are created thanks to force applied by the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848027</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, You're begging the question.<br>Second: a better task would be for capital-Y You to explain why a person should not be free to do as he/she wishes as long as it doesn't affect the ability of any other person to do the same thing. Because that is the cornerstone of Libertarianism and it in no way conflicts with Al Gore's invention of the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , You 're begging the question.Second : a better task would be for capital-Y You to explain why a person should not be free to do as he/she wishes as long as it does n't affect the ability of any other person to do the same thing .
Because that is the cornerstone of Libertarianism and it in no way conflicts with Al Gore 's invention of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, You're begging the question.Second: a better task would be for capital-Y You to explain why a person should not be free to do as he/she wishes as long as it doesn't affect the ability of any other person to do the same thing.
Because that is the cornerstone of Libertarianism and it in no way conflicts with Al Gore's invention of the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852375</id>
	<title>Re:An old Ronald Reagan quote is still true...</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1256296740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations, you just restated the basis for Austrian economics, the principle libertarian economic theory.  It's the Keynesians that think that economics can be fully understood mathematically.  These are the people who run our government (badly) under both parties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you just restated the basis for Austrian economics , the principle libertarian economic theory .
It 's the Keynesians that think that economics can be fully understood mathematically .
These are the people who run our government ( badly ) under both parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you just restated the basis for Austrian economics, the principle libertarian economic theory.
It's the Keynesians that think that economics can be fully understood mathematically.
These are the people who run our government (badly) under both parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848965</id>
	<title>Libertarians aren't libertarians</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1256325120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mistake is believing that Libertarians and those who proclaim themselves to be libertarians are, indeed, in favor of liberty.  By their actions you shall know them.</p><p>This isn't unusual.  The Communists weren't communists.  NONE!  NONE!  None of them!  They weren't all totalitarians (one of the opposites of communist), but most of them were.  Others were anarchists, a couple were socialists, a few were a weird kind of royalist.  Etc.  Most royalists, however, actually ARE royalists.  I think the problem is that people have a built in desire for a king...and a social group of 20-100 people.  (At that size a king provides a cheap, effective, government, provided that you have an effective means of recall.  Which such groups did.  Murder wasn't uncommon, and the king didn't have THAT much power.  If people disagreed with him too often, he stopped being king.)</p><p>Libertarians don't expose kingship, but what they DO espouse doesn't work any more than communism does in a large diverse society.  If you examine FOSS groups you'll find them filled with Dictators and Gods and other titles of ultimate authority.  Guido is BDFL:  Benevolent Dictator for Life.  He's not the only one.  But his only power is that he rules those who wish to be ruled by his absolute dictates.  So he's got to be very careful about how he exerts his authority.  Linus famously called it "herding cats".</p><p>FOSS is a workable form of libertarianism.  It doesn't come with the traditional dogmas, though.  Just a few software licenses, and a lot of rules of thumb for what works in an organization where the only authority is that which is freely given.  Traditional libertarians often find this quite unpalatable.  They prefer their Libertarianism to be a religion, with a hierarchical structure and rules passed down by a centralized authority.  Them.  But they don't want to earn the position.  Some would be quite willing to buy it, but that's not the same thing.  (Note that FOSS isn't directly dependent on government issued money.  The individual developers are, but that's a different matter.  In the FOSS communities status and wealth are nearly independent variables.)</p><p>It's also worth noting that the FOSS form of organization doesn't work in projects that have large up front costs.  (Small costs distributed over a wide area and long period of time does work, however.)  So the FOSS form of organization isn't a form of government, and can't, at our current level of technology, be successfully made into one.</p><p>OTOH, quite a large proportion of FOSS proponents are young males.  Such folk are traditionally given to causes.  Many FOSS proponents are also libertarians in politics.  That this doesn't necessarily work in areas with large capital costs tends to get lost on them until they're a bit older.  Unfortunately, the US government has proven itself an enemy of liberty recently, so there's a good argument that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are worthy of trust.  The US government seems clearly headed towards some form of totalitarianism, and that's extremely bad.  But this doesn't mean that Libertarianism as currently defined would be a workable answer.</p><p>But "workable" isn't what Libertarianism is about.  So of course they object to libertarianism whose main goal is "workable liberty".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mistake is believing that Libertarians and those who proclaim themselves to be libertarians are , indeed , in favor of liberty .
By their actions you shall know them.This is n't unusual .
The Communists were n't communists .
NONE ! NONE !
None of them !
They were n't all totalitarians ( one of the opposites of communist ) , but most of them were .
Others were anarchists , a couple were socialists , a few were a weird kind of royalist .
Etc. Most royalists , however , actually ARE royalists .
I think the problem is that people have a built in desire for a king...and a social group of 20-100 people .
( At that size a king provides a cheap , effective , government , provided that you have an effective means of recall .
Which such groups did .
Murder was n't uncommon , and the king did n't have THAT much power .
If people disagreed with him too often , he stopped being king .
) Libertarians do n't expose kingship , but what they DO espouse does n't work any more than communism does in a large diverse society .
If you examine FOSS groups you 'll find them filled with Dictators and Gods and other titles of ultimate authority .
Guido is BDFL : Benevolent Dictator for Life .
He 's not the only one .
But his only power is that he rules those who wish to be ruled by his absolute dictates .
So he 's got to be very careful about how he exerts his authority .
Linus famously called it " herding cats " .FOSS is a workable form of libertarianism .
It does n't come with the traditional dogmas , though .
Just a few software licenses , and a lot of rules of thumb for what works in an organization where the only authority is that which is freely given .
Traditional libertarians often find this quite unpalatable .
They prefer their Libertarianism to be a religion , with a hierarchical structure and rules passed down by a centralized authority .
Them. But they do n't want to earn the position .
Some would be quite willing to buy it , but that 's not the same thing .
( Note that FOSS is n't directly dependent on government issued money .
The individual developers are , but that 's a different matter .
In the FOSS communities status and wealth are nearly independent variables .
) It 's also worth noting that the FOSS form of organization does n't work in projects that have large up front costs .
( Small costs distributed over a wide area and long period of time does work , however .
) So the FOSS form of organization is n't a form of government , and ca n't , at our current level of technology , be successfully made into one.OTOH , quite a large proportion of FOSS proponents are young males .
Such folk are traditionally given to causes .
Many FOSS proponents are also libertarians in politics .
That this does n't necessarily work in areas with large capital costs tends to get lost on them until they 're a bit older .
Unfortunately , the US government has proven itself an enemy of liberty recently , so there 's a good argument that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are worthy of trust .
The US government seems clearly headed towards some form of totalitarianism , and that 's extremely bad .
But this does n't mean that Libertarianism as currently defined would be a workable answer.But " workable " is n't what Libertarianism is about .
So of course they object to libertarianism whose main goal is " workable liberty " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mistake is believing that Libertarians and those who proclaim themselves to be libertarians are, indeed, in favor of liberty.
By their actions you shall know them.This isn't unusual.
The Communists weren't communists.
NONE!  NONE!
None of them!
They weren't all totalitarians (one of the opposites of communist), but most of them were.
Others were anarchists, a couple were socialists, a few were a weird kind of royalist.
Etc.  Most royalists, however, actually ARE royalists.
I think the problem is that people have a built in desire for a king...and a social group of 20-100 people.
(At that size a king provides a cheap, effective, government, provided that you have an effective means of recall.
Which such groups did.
Murder wasn't uncommon, and the king didn't have THAT much power.
If people disagreed with him too often, he stopped being king.
)Libertarians don't expose kingship, but what they DO espouse doesn't work any more than communism does in a large diverse society.
If you examine FOSS groups you'll find them filled with Dictators and Gods and other titles of ultimate authority.
Guido is BDFL:  Benevolent Dictator for Life.
He's not the only one.
But his only power is that he rules those who wish to be ruled by his absolute dictates.
So he's got to be very careful about how he exerts his authority.
Linus famously called it "herding cats".FOSS is a workable form of libertarianism.
It doesn't come with the traditional dogmas, though.
Just a few software licenses, and a lot of rules of thumb for what works in an organization where the only authority is that which is freely given.
Traditional libertarians often find this quite unpalatable.
They prefer their Libertarianism to be a religion, with a hierarchical structure and rules passed down by a centralized authority.
Them.  But they don't want to earn the position.
Some would be quite willing to buy it, but that's not the same thing.
(Note that FOSS isn't directly dependent on government issued money.
The individual developers are, but that's a different matter.
In the FOSS communities status and wealth are nearly independent variables.
)It's also worth noting that the FOSS form of organization doesn't work in projects that have large up front costs.
(Small costs distributed over a wide area and long period of time does work, however.
)  So the FOSS form of organization isn't a form of government, and can't, at our current level of technology, be successfully made into one.OTOH, quite a large proportion of FOSS proponents are young males.
Such folk are traditionally given to causes.
Many FOSS proponents are also libertarians in politics.
That this doesn't necessarily work in areas with large capital costs tends to get lost on them until they're a bit older.
Unfortunately, the US government has proven itself an enemy of liberty recently, so there's a good argument that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are worthy of trust.
The US government seems clearly headed towards some form of totalitarianism, and that's extremely bad.
But this doesn't mean that Libertarianism as currently defined would be a workable answer.But "workable" isn't what Libertarianism is about.
So of course they object to libertarianism whose main goal is "workable liberty".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851257</id>
	<title>Re:Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!</title>
	<author>Gverig</author>
	<datestamp>1256290740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!</p></div><p>Indeed. I was trying to find comments about this and was surprised that yours seem to be the only one. Both original-original article and the rebuff discuss FOSS and copyright questions and barely touch on net neutrality, which is supposedly the primary topic. Weird.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is a violation of the property rights</p></div><p>Err... Well... Aghm... Yes, it's a restriction on the property holder. However I would argue that it's far from unreasonable for two reasons:<br>1) Broadband access is highly monopolized. There is usually at most two half-decent providers in an area (one in my area, some might have decent cable, DSL and optical but it would be a huge exception). Where there is a monopoly there is no market and there has to be oversight. There aren't that many entities that hold a power to oversee and government is one of these entities.<br>2) Internet has become a pretty vital information source in todays society. And if we like internet providers to phone companies, net neutrality provisions would be like preventing phone companies from reducing call quality for outside long distance providers forcing to use theirs long distance. Or blocking any other company that provides similar services (conf. calls, remote voice mail, etc.).</p><p>Ultimately, if I subscribe to "10Mbit internet" as a service I should be able to use it however I want, be that making skype calls or downloading videos. They can put use caps, limit throughput or do many other interesting things to make sure they stay afloat but IMO discriminating one service over the other as they please violates the concept of what internet is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality is NOT FOSS ! Indeed .
I was trying to find comments about this and was surprised that yours seem to be the only one .
Both original-original article and the rebuff discuss FOSS and copyright questions and barely touch on net neutrality , which is supposedly the primary topic .
Weird.It is a violation of the property rightsErr... Well... Aghm... Yes , it 's a restriction on the property holder .
However I would argue that it 's far from unreasonable for two reasons : 1 ) Broadband access is highly monopolized .
There is usually at most two half-decent providers in an area ( one in my area , some might have decent cable , DSL and optical but it would be a huge exception ) .
Where there is a monopoly there is no market and there has to be oversight .
There are n't that many entities that hold a power to oversee and government is one of these entities.2 ) Internet has become a pretty vital information source in todays society .
And if we like internet providers to phone companies , net neutrality provisions would be like preventing phone companies from reducing call quality for outside long distance providers forcing to use theirs long distance .
Or blocking any other company that provides similar services ( conf .
calls , remote voice mail , etc .
) .Ultimately , if I subscribe to " 10Mbit internet " as a service I should be able to use it however I want , be that making skype calls or downloading videos .
They can put use caps , limit throughput or do many other interesting things to make sure they stay afloat but IMO discriminating one service over the other as they please violates the concept of what internet is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!Indeed.
I was trying to find comments about this and was surprised that yours seem to be the only one.
Both original-original article and the rebuff discuss FOSS and copyright questions and barely touch on net neutrality, which is supposedly the primary topic.
Weird.It is a violation of the property rightsErr... Well... Aghm... Yes, it's a restriction on the property holder.
However I would argue that it's far from unreasonable for two reasons:1) Broadband access is highly monopolized.
There is usually at most two half-decent providers in an area (one in my area, some might have decent cable, DSL and optical but it would be a huge exception).
Where there is a monopoly there is no market and there has to be oversight.
There aren't that many entities that hold a power to oversee and government is one of these entities.2) Internet has become a pretty vital information source in todays society.
And if we like internet providers to phone companies, net neutrality provisions would be like preventing phone companies from reducing call quality for outside long distance providers forcing to use theirs long distance.
Or blocking any other company that provides similar services (conf.
calls, remote voice mail, etc.
).Ultimately, if I subscribe to "10Mbit internet" as a service I should be able to use it however I want, be that making skype calls or downloading videos.
They can put use caps, limit throughput or do many other interesting things to make sure they stay afloat but IMO discriminating one service over the other as they please violates the concept of what internet is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847307</id>
	<title>Why do Librarians hate America?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1256319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do the nation's librarians have such an axe to grind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do the nation 's librarians have such an axe to grind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do the nation's librarians have such an axe to grind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859355</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256376660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you implying technology steadily moving from government monopoly to widespread use wouldn't happen in a libertarian political structure? That sounds silly to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying technology steadily moving from government monopoly to widespread use would n't happen in a libertarian political structure ?
That sounds silly to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying technology steadily moving from government monopoly to widespread use wouldn't happen in a libertarian political structure?
That sounds silly to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848595</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>Akoman</author>
	<datestamp>1256324040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means. The one thing it precisely does <i>not</i> guarantee is liberty.</p></div><p>Oh, that's so deja vu: George Orwell said the same thing about capitalism after the Spanish Revolution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote this here years ago , but it bears repeating : Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means .
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.Oh , that 's so deja vu : George Orwell said the same thing about capitalism after the Spanish Revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means.
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.Oh, that's so deja vu: George Orwell said the same thing about capitalism after the Spanish Revolution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849985</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1256329140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I tend to think of myself as being "libertarian," though there are caveats. I'd rather let the market decide, <b>unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself</b>.</p></div><p>You're not a libertarian. Part of being one is believing in a dogma that a truly free market can <em>never</em> be incapable of regulating itself. If you think it is, then it's either:</p><ul><li>not truly free - subversive government intervention</li><li>a temporary spike which perhaps lasted for a bit longer than usual - a statistical possibility - and which will soon be fixed by the market itself</li><li>you not understanding that the market is perfectly fine as is, probably because you're negatively affected by it being in its perfect state compared to some other</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to think of myself as being " libertarian , " though there are caveats .
I 'd rather let the market decide , unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself.You 're not a libertarian .
Part of being one is believing in a dogma that a truly free market can never be incapable of regulating itself .
If you think it is , then it 's either : not truly free - subversive government interventiona temporary spike which perhaps lasted for a bit longer than usual - a statistical possibility - and which will soon be fixed by the market itselfyou not understanding that the market is perfectly fine as is , probably because you 're negatively affected by it being in its perfect state compared to some other</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to think of myself as being "libertarian," though there are caveats.
I'd rather let the market decide, unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself.You're not a libertarian.
Part of being one is believing in a dogma that a truly free market can never be incapable of regulating itself.
If you think it is, then it's either:not truly free - subversive government interventiona temporary spike which perhaps lasted for a bit longer than usual - a statistical possibility - and which will soon be fixed by the market itselfyou not understanding that the market is perfectly fine as is, probably because you're negatively affected by it being in its perfect state compared to some other
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847317</id>
	<title>ESR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Eric S. Raymond - one of the early proponents of the Open Source movement - a Libertarian?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Eric S. Raymond - one of the early proponents of the Open Source movement - a Libertarian ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Eric S. Raymond - one of the early proponents of the Open Source movement - a Libertarian?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850007</id>
	<title>Shooting their own principles.</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1256329200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Libertarians are big on the "my stuff" thing. If they criticise other people for doing with "their stuff" (in this case: software they wrote) whatever the hell they want, they're not really libertarians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians are big on the " my stuff " thing .
If they criticise other people for doing with " their stuff " ( in this case : software they wrote ) whatever the hell they want , they 're not really libertarians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians are big on the "my stuff" thing.
If they criticise other people for doing with "their stuff" (in this case: software they wrote) whatever the hell they want, they're not really libertarians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1256320140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adam Smith was a proponent of a regulated free market, precisely the opposite of what you stated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adam Smith was a proponent of a regulated free market , precisely the opposite of what you stated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adam Smith was a proponent of a regulated free market, precisely the opposite of what you stated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847439</id>
	<title>Libertarian Establishment</title>
	<author>DZComposer</author>
	<datestamp>1256319840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason behind this is simple: Libertarians (or at least the "think tank" Establishment branch of them) equate freedom with being able to make as much money for yourself as you can, and do with that money whatever you please.
<br> <br>
The problem with FOSS in their eyes is that it prevents the proprietary software companies from making as much money as they want.
<br> <br>
They don't want a "free market" in the classical sense. To them "free market" means "free to be anti-competitive and free from government safety/environmental regulations."
<br> <br>
They only care about making money for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.
<br> <br>
A true free-market economy is as much of a pipe dream as a true Communist one. Greed and lust for power corrupt both of these ideologies before they ever get fully established.
<br> <br>
I'll grant that many rank-and-file Libertarians do not think this way, but the most vocal part of the Libertarian movement sure seems to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason behind this is simple : Libertarians ( or at least the " think tank " Establishment branch of them ) equate freedom with being able to make as much money for yourself as you can , and do with that money whatever you please .
The problem with FOSS in their eyes is that it prevents the proprietary software companies from making as much money as they want .
They do n't want a " free market " in the classical sense .
To them " free market " means " free to be anti-competitive and free from government safety/environmental regulations .
" They only care about making money for themselves , and to hell with everyone else .
A true free-market economy is as much of a pipe dream as a true Communist one .
Greed and lust for power corrupt both of these ideologies before they ever get fully established .
I 'll grant that many rank-and-file Libertarians do not think this way , but the most vocal part of the Libertarian movement sure seems to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason behind this is simple: Libertarians (or at least the "think tank" Establishment branch of them) equate freedom with being able to make as much money for yourself as you can, and do with that money whatever you please.
The problem with FOSS in their eyes is that it prevents the proprietary software companies from making as much money as they want.
They don't want a "free market" in the classical sense.
To them "free market" means "free to be anti-competitive and free from government safety/environmental regulations.
"
 
They only care about making money for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.
A true free-market economy is as much of a pipe dream as a true Communist one.
Greed and lust for power corrupt both of these ideologies before they ever get fully established.
I'll grant that many rank-and-file Libertarians do not think this way, but the most vocal part of the Libertarian movement sure seems to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848193</id>
	<title>This story is a dupe</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1256322540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first, I thought this story was a dupe of the one about <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1512212/The-Science-of-Irrational-Decisions?from=rss" title="slashdot.org">irrational decisions</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first , I thought this story was a dupe of the one about irrational decisions [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first, I thought this story was a dupe of the one about irrational decisions [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201</id>
	<title>Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>cshbell</author>
	<datestamp>1256318820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means. The one thing it precisely does <i>not</i> guarantee is liberty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote this here years ago , but it bears repeating : Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means .
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means.
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847425</id>
	<title>Free software is good, net nutrality not so much.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1256319780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course free software is fine from a libertarian perspective. Net nutrality, on the other hand, is a set of government rules imposed on ISPs. Libertarians believe that the government should only protect your property, and net nutrality does not do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course free software is fine from a libertarian perspective .
Net nutrality , on the other hand , is a set of government rules imposed on ISPs .
Libertarians believe that the government should only protect your property , and net nutrality does not do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course free software is fine from a libertarian perspective.
Net nutrality, on the other hand, is a set of government rules imposed on ISPs.
Libertarians believe that the government should only protect your property, and net nutrality does not do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853227</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256304660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they aren't greedy they at the very least ignore the fact that everyone looking out for themselves results in nobody looking after the commons.</p><p>Libertarianism breaks down as quickly as communism on number of people.</p><p>The classic Tragedy of the Commons is overfishing.  When everybody fishes the most they can possibly fish then everyone gets less fish.  But there if even one person doesn't agree to fishing limits then they gain an unfair advantage.</p><p>The libertarian fallacy is that because it's overall profitable for everybody agree to not be selfish then everybody will do what's best for the greatest good, when in truth without regulation each entity will look out for its own good even to its own detriment.    So in that regard they aren't greedy so much as idealistic in their assumptions that people will evaluate the long term sensibility of their greed and not attempt to game the system for personal gain... and to take it further that everybody won't attempt to game the system for personal gain to everyone's detriment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are n't greedy they at the very least ignore the fact that everyone looking out for themselves results in nobody looking after the commons.Libertarianism breaks down as quickly as communism on number of people.The classic Tragedy of the Commons is overfishing .
When everybody fishes the most they can possibly fish then everyone gets less fish .
But there if even one person does n't agree to fishing limits then they gain an unfair advantage.The libertarian fallacy is that because it 's overall profitable for everybody agree to not be selfish then everybody will do what 's best for the greatest good , when in truth without regulation each entity will look out for its own good even to its own detriment .
So in that regard they are n't greedy so much as idealistic in their assumptions that people will evaluate the long term sensibility of their greed and not attempt to game the system for personal gain... and to take it further that everybody wo n't attempt to game the system for personal gain to everyone 's detriment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they aren't greedy they at the very least ignore the fact that everyone looking out for themselves results in nobody looking after the commons.Libertarianism breaks down as quickly as communism on number of people.The classic Tragedy of the Commons is overfishing.
When everybody fishes the most they can possibly fish then everyone gets less fish.
But there if even one person doesn't agree to fishing limits then they gain an unfair advantage.The libertarian fallacy is that because it's overall profitable for everybody agree to not be selfish then everybody will do what's best for the greatest good, when in truth without regulation each entity will look out for its own good even to its own detriment.
So in that regard they aren't greedy so much as idealistic in their assumptions that people will evaluate the long term sensibility of their greed and not attempt to game the system for personal gain... and to take it further that everybody won't attempt to game the system for personal gain to everyone's detriment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849051</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1256325480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I say this as a political libertarian with social conservative sensibilities. The single biggest reason why libertarianism is going nowhere is because it's such an unfocused movement that grabs whatever liberty it can and that doesn't even pretend to have a higher vision than "I'll get mine." That turns off most voters.</i></p><p>Indeed.  It very much seems to me that most libertarians always think from a point of view that assumes they will be in an advantageous position in this hypothetical libertarian utopia.  When a libertarian argues that all or nearly all government regulation should be eliminated, including labor and wage laws, quality and safety laws, and virtually every statutory limitation on contracts, it's very hard to imagine who this would benefit except for the wealthy businessmen who feel stifled by these restrictions.  It doesn't help that the most prominent libertarians are people who appear to be in such a position of power to have the advantage in future contract negotiations.  For those of us who would be on the "we need a job so we can not die of starvation or exposure" end of the bargaining power scale, it doesn't look so hot, and the libertarians appear not to care at all.</p><p>So I'm interested on your take of the issue, since you seem to reject the "i'll get mine" philosophy that defines Randian Libertarianism.  It's a sad fact that my first impression and most of my interactions with libertarians have been with the crazy anarcho-capitalist form.  There are reasonable ones out there, I've talked to em.  I want to hear what <i>they</i> think.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><i>Even though under a libertarian system there'd be no corporate welfare at all (since there'd be a simple tax code and subsidizes would be outlawed in the constitution), their behavior gives normal, non-ideological people good reason to believe that a libertarian government would look like a plutocratic-kleptocratic oligarchy of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselves</i></p><p>Even though there'd be no corporate welfare?  We don't think a libertarian system would lead to a plutocracy because the government would be in the pocket of business, we think a libertarian system would lead to plutocracy because the government would, by design, be too weak to prevent it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say this as a political libertarian with social conservative sensibilities .
The single biggest reason why libertarianism is going nowhere is because it 's such an unfocused movement that grabs whatever liberty it can and that does n't even pretend to have a higher vision than " I 'll get mine .
" That turns off most voters.Indeed .
It very much seems to me that most libertarians always think from a point of view that assumes they will be in an advantageous position in this hypothetical libertarian utopia .
When a libertarian argues that all or nearly all government regulation should be eliminated , including labor and wage laws , quality and safety laws , and virtually every statutory limitation on contracts , it 's very hard to imagine who this would benefit except for the wealthy businessmen who feel stifled by these restrictions .
It does n't help that the most prominent libertarians are people who appear to be in such a position of power to have the advantage in future contract negotiations .
For those of us who would be on the " we need a job so we can not die of starvation or exposure " end of the bargaining power scale , it does n't look so hot , and the libertarians appear not to care at all.So I 'm interested on your take of the issue , since you seem to reject the " i 'll get mine " philosophy that defines Randian Libertarianism .
It 's a sad fact that my first impression and most of my interactions with libertarians have been with the crazy anarcho-capitalist form .
There are reasonable ones out there , I 've talked to em .
I want to hear what they think .
: ) Even though under a libertarian system there 'd be no corporate welfare at all ( since there 'd be a simple tax code and subsidizes would be outlawed in the constitution ) , their behavior gives normal , non-ideological people good reason to believe that a libertarian government would look like a plutocratic-kleptocratic oligarchy of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselvesEven though there 'd be no corporate welfare ?
We do n't think a libertarian system would lead to a plutocracy because the government would be in the pocket of business , we think a libertarian system would lead to plutocracy because the government would , by design , be too weak to prevent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say this as a political libertarian with social conservative sensibilities.
The single biggest reason why libertarianism is going nowhere is because it's such an unfocused movement that grabs whatever liberty it can and that doesn't even pretend to have a higher vision than "I'll get mine.
" That turns off most voters.Indeed.
It very much seems to me that most libertarians always think from a point of view that assumes they will be in an advantageous position in this hypothetical libertarian utopia.
When a libertarian argues that all or nearly all government regulation should be eliminated, including labor and wage laws, quality and safety laws, and virtually every statutory limitation on contracts, it's very hard to imagine who this would benefit except for the wealthy businessmen who feel stifled by these restrictions.
It doesn't help that the most prominent libertarians are people who appear to be in such a position of power to have the advantage in future contract negotiations.
For those of us who would be on the "we need a job so we can not die of starvation or exposure" end of the bargaining power scale, it doesn't look so hot, and the libertarians appear not to care at all.So I'm interested on your take of the issue, since you seem to reject the "i'll get mine" philosophy that defines Randian Libertarianism.
It's a sad fact that my first impression and most of my interactions with libertarians have been with the crazy anarcho-capitalist form.
There are reasonable ones out there, I've talked to em.
I want to hear what they think.
:)Even though under a libertarian system there'd be no corporate welfare at all (since there'd be a simple tax code and subsidizes would be outlawed in the constitution), their behavior gives normal, non-ideological people good reason to believe that a libertarian government would look like a plutocratic-kleptocratic oligarchy of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselvesEven though there'd be no corporate welfare?
We don't think a libertarian system would lead to a plutocracy because the government would be in the pocket of business, we think a libertarian system would lead to plutocracy because the government would, by design, be too weak to prevent it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852313</id>
	<title>Re:Not all Libertarians are Free Market</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1256296320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, so not all libertarians are the opposite of libertarians (fascists)?  I'm happy to know that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so not all libertarians are the opposite of libertarians ( fascists ) ?
I 'm happy to know that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so not all libertarians are the opposite of libertarians (fascists)?
I'm happy to know that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1256319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means. The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.</i></p><p>Ah, but those ten seconds of pure unadulterated anarcho-capitalism, before someone with power and money realizes that no rules means they get to make the rules, would be fucking <b>sweet</b>.  =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote this here years ago , but it bears repeating : Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means .
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.Ah , but those ten seconds of pure unadulterated anarcho-capitalism , before someone with power and money realizes that no rules means they get to make the rules , would be fucking sweet .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means.
The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.Ah, but those ten seconds of pure unadulterated anarcho-capitalism, before someone with power and money realizes that no rules means they get to make the rules, would be fucking sweet.
=)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852485</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256297580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus includes a right to control. But the right to control is not fundamental. For intangible goods, which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity, a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them.</p></div><p>I think the exact opposite is true. Because tangible property is scarce, it is of a much greater importance that it is not under exclusive control, and that it be shared for the public good. This is especially true with land ownership, because the owner did not create the land - it was taken as the spoils of war, or inherited as the profits of nobility. But it still applies to property "created" by the owner, because the raw materials were taken from nature. The idea that one can own products of nature extends from that fallacy of land ownership.</p><p>Intellectual property, on the other hand, is a much truer "creation" of the owner/author than other forms of property. It also contains clauses for the public good, such as expiration of copyright, which don't apply to other forms of property. If you have lived on a piece of land for a certain number of years, it doesn't go back into the public domain, even if you have contributed nothing to it. Your emphasis on labor is interesting here, as property ownership requires little to no labor, yet owners are still richly rewarded even if they do no labor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For tangible products , which are intrinsically scarce , a right to enjoy demands a right to control , and thus includes a right to control .
But the right to control is not fundamental .
For intangible goods , which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity , a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them.I think the exact opposite is true .
Because tangible property is scarce , it is of a much greater importance that it is not under exclusive control , and that it be shared for the public good .
This is especially true with land ownership , because the owner did not create the land - it was taken as the spoils of war , or inherited as the profits of nobility .
But it still applies to property " created " by the owner , because the raw materials were taken from nature .
The idea that one can own products of nature extends from that fallacy of land ownership.Intellectual property , on the other hand , is a much truer " creation " of the owner/author than other forms of property .
It also contains clauses for the public good , such as expiration of copyright , which do n't apply to other forms of property .
If you have lived on a piece of land for a certain number of years , it does n't go back into the public domain , even if you have contributed nothing to it .
Your emphasis on labor is interesting here , as property ownership requires little to no labor , yet owners are still richly rewarded even if they do no labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For tangible products, which are intrinsically scarce, a right to enjoy demands a right to control, and thus includes a right to control.
But the right to control is not fundamental.
For intangible goods, which do not exhibit intrinsic scarcity, a right to enjoy is still possess by whomever labored to create them.I think the exact opposite is true.
Because tangible property is scarce, it is of a much greater importance that it is not under exclusive control, and that it be shared for the public good.
This is especially true with land ownership, because the owner did not create the land - it was taken as the spoils of war, or inherited as the profits of nobility.
But it still applies to property "created" by the owner, because the raw materials were taken from nature.
The idea that one can own products of nature extends from that fallacy of land ownership.Intellectual property, on the other hand, is a much truer "creation" of the owner/author than other forms of property.
It also contains clauses for the public good, such as expiration of copyright, which don't apply to other forms of property.
If you have lived on a piece of land for a certain number of years, it doesn't go back into the public domain, even if you have contributed nothing to it.
Your emphasis on labor is interesting here, as property ownership requires little to no labor, yet owners are still richly rewarded even if they do no labor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133</id>
	<title>"Heartland Institute"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where did you get the idea that these guys are libertatians?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did you get the idea that these guys are libertatians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did you get the idea that these guys are libertatians?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848613</id>
	<title>Re:Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased.</p></div><p>   And there is the fallacy in this whole Net Neutrality argument.  The network is publicly owned and privately leased.  Remember it uses public bandwidth and public infrastructure, which is leased (sometimes 'in perpetuity', but still leased) to the ISPs / TelCos / etc.  To take it even further, the vast majority of the IP that makes up the network infrastructure is also owned by the public as we paid for the DARPA / internic / SUN / etc research that went into creating what has become the network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased .
And there is the fallacy in this whole Net Neutrality argument .
The network is publicly owned and privately leased .
Remember it uses public bandwidth and public infrastructure , which is leased ( sometimes 'in perpetuity ' , but still leased ) to the ISPs / TelCos / etc .
To take it even further , the vast majority of the IP that makes up the network infrastructure is also owned by the public as we paid for the DARPA / internic / SUN / etc research that went into creating what has become the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased.
And there is the fallacy in this whole Net Neutrality argument.
The network is publicly owned and privately leased.
Remember it uses public bandwidth and public infrastructure, which is leased (sometimes 'in perpetuity', but still leased) to the ISPs / TelCos / etc.
To take it even further, the vast majority of the IP that makes up the network infrastructure is also owned by the public as we paid for the DARPA / internic / SUN / etc research that went into creating what has become the network.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850255</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256330220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or nobody wants to talk to an arrogant guy called fahrvergnugen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or nobody wants to talk to an arrogant guy called fahrvergnugen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or nobody wants to talk to an arrogant guy called fahrvergnugen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848717</id>
	<title>Not surprisingly...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1256324340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heartland.org is running (according to Netcraft): Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft-IIS/6.0.<br>
Take their position against free software and net neutrality with a grain of salt...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heartland.org is running ( according to Netcraft ) : Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft-IIS/6.0 .
Take their position against free software and net neutrality with a grain of salt.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heartland.org is running (according to Netcraft): Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft-IIS/6.0.
Take their position against free software and net neutrality with a grain of salt...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851219</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1256290560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"True libertarians"
<br> <br>
I love when people use the word "true" to refer to a subgroup within a larger group that more agrees with their personal beliefs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" True libertarians " I love when people use the word " true " to refer to a subgroup within a larger group that more agrees with their personal beliefs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"True libertarians"
 
I love when people use the word "true" to refer to a subgroup within a larger group that more agrees with their personal beliefs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847511</id>
	<title>Ceci n'est pas une pipe</title>
	<author>threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1256320140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because they call themselves libertarians on their website, doesn't actually make them libertarians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because they call themselves libertarians on their website , does n't actually make them libertarians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because they call themselves libertarians on their website, doesn't actually make them libertarians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848797</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to point out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Knowledge" doesn't cost anything to pass on.</p></div><p>Ah, that's why schools and universities are free...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Knowledge " does n't cost anything to pass on.Ah , that 's why schools and universities are free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Knowledge" doesn't cost anything to pass on.Ah, that's why schools and universities are free...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848045</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's one of the most misleading, ungrammatical, and silly sentences I've ever read. There is no direct association between freedom and responsibility, any more than between slavery and responsibility, freedom and irresponsibilty, etc.. Freedom allows a person to follow his best interests, and to use the word "greed" for that is to use a loaded term that not libertarians, but the opponents of libertarians, would use.</p><p>Although the world includes masochists, for sane people <b>the idea that the purpose of freedom is to give you more opportunities to hurt yourself</b> is wrong. The purpose of freedom is to give individuals the opportunity to better themselves, and to say "Libertarians association freedom with greed" is to attempt to slur both libertarians and freedom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility.That 's one of the most misleading , ungrammatical , and silly sentences I 've ever read .
There is no direct association between freedom and responsibility , any more than between slavery and responsibility , freedom and irresponsibilty , etc.. Freedom allows a person to follow his best interests , and to use the word " greed " for that is to use a loaded term that not libertarians , but the opponents of libertarians , would use.Although the world includes masochists , for sane people the idea that the purpose of freedom is to give you more opportunities to hurt yourself is wrong .
The purpose of freedom is to give individuals the opportunity to better themselves , and to say " Libertarians association freedom with greed " is to attempt to slur both libertarians and freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility.That's one of the most misleading, ungrammatical, and silly sentences I've ever read.
There is no direct association between freedom and responsibility, any more than between slavery and responsibility, freedom and irresponsibilty, etc.. Freedom allows a person to follow his best interests, and to use the word "greed" for that is to use a loaded term that not libertarians, but the opponents of libertarians, would use.Although the world includes masochists, for sane people the idea that the purpose of freedom is to give you more opportunities to hurt yourself is wrong.
The purpose of freedom is to give individuals the opportunity to better themselves, and to say "Libertarians association freedom with greed" is to attempt to slur both libertarians and freedom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879733</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256565600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps"</p><p>Or vice-versa. There's nothing especially privileged about "government" vs "corporation" - both are large human organisations with the associated problems - except that a corporation's duty is to make money for its shareholders while a government's duty is to do whatever all its citizens agree on.</p><p>If you have a minority who want to abuse a majority, they may well find it easier to do so by taking control of a corporation which doesn't even need to pay lipservice to democracy, than by taking control of a government.</p><p>But if they do want to take control of a government, the easiest sector to dominate will be the military, which already is based around top-down command/control and secrecy. And if you have a military which does secret, large-dollar deals with equally secret corporations - then that's a hotbed of corruption and abuse right there.</p><p>To the extent that libertarians/conservatives notice this huge democracy and freedom gap in both the military and corporate sectors (and some of them, like the Antiwar.com folks, do - others like the Heritage Foundation, not so much, it's a huge blind spot) then I'm in agreement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Big , bloated , inefficient government leads to big , bloated , inefficient corps " Or vice-versa .
There 's nothing especially privileged about " government " vs " corporation " - both are large human organisations with the associated problems - except that a corporation 's duty is to make money for its shareholders while a government 's duty is to do whatever all its citizens agree on.If you have a minority who want to abuse a majority , they may well find it easier to do so by taking control of a corporation which does n't even need to pay lipservice to democracy , than by taking control of a government.But if they do want to take control of a government , the easiest sector to dominate will be the military , which already is based around top-down command/control and secrecy .
And if you have a military which does secret , large-dollar deals with equally secret corporations - then that 's a hotbed of corruption and abuse right there.To the extent that libertarians/conservatives notice this huge democracy and freedom gap in both the military and corporate sectors ( and some of them , like the Antiwar.com folks , do - others like the Heritage Foundation , not so much , it 's a huge blind spot ) then I 'm in agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps"Or vice-versa.
There's nothing especially privileged about "government" vs "corporation" - both are large human organisations with the associated problems - except that a corporation's duty is to make money for its shareholders while a government's duty is to do whatever all its citizens agree on.If you have a minority who want to abuse a majority, they may well find it easier to do so by taking control of a corporation which doesn't even need to pay lipservice to democracy, than by taking control of a government.But if they do want to take control of a government, the easiest sector to dominate will be the military, which already is based around top-down command/control and secrecy.
And if you have a military which does secret, large-dollar deals with equally secret corporations - then that's a hotbed of corruption and abuse right there.To the extent that libertarians/conservatives notice this huge democracy and freedom gap in both the military and corporate sectors (and some of them, like the Antiwar.com folks, do - others like the Heritage Foundation, not so much, it's a huge blind spot) then I'm in agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848703</id>
	<title>People like this</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1256324340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes I'm pretty sure people like this are just grasping for rationalisation of their buyer's remorse.  They paid 300 dollars for their godawful, bug-ridden, virus-prone, piece of trash Windows OS, but they can't admit to themselves that they made a poor purchasing decision.  They then construct elaborate, if inane, theories and explanations about how the only things worth anything must have a pricetag, and there's no way that dirty liberal down the street has something <b>better</b> that he got for <b>free</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I 'm pretty sure people like this are just grasping for rationalisation of their buyer 's remorse .
They paid 300 dollars for their godawful , bug-ridden , virus-prone , piece of trash Windows OS , but they ca n't admit to themselves that they made a poor purchasing decision .
They then construct elaborate , if inane , theories and explanations about how the only things worth anything must have a pricetag , and there 's no way that dirty liberal down the street has something better that he got for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I'm pretty sure people like this are just grasping for rationalisation of their buyer's remorse.
They paid 300 dollars for their godawful, bug-ridden, virus-prone, piece of trash Windows OS, but they can't admit to themselves that they made a poor purchasing decision.
They then construct elaborate, if inane, theories and explanations about how the only things worth anything must have a pricetag, and there's no way that dirty liberal down the street has something better that he got for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850279</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>blif</author>
	<datestamp>1256330280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Railroad companies (UP, SP etc.) were heavily subsidized in the 19th century by federal land grants and loans.
</p><p>
Then there's the thousands of Chinese, Italians, Irish etc. immigrants who died during railroad construction because of unregulated working conditions.
</p><p>
i.e. these were plutocratic, not libertarian political conditions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Railroad companies ( UP , SP etc .
) were heavily subsidized in the 19th century by federal land grants and loans .
Then there 's the thousands of Chinese , Italians , Irish etc .
immigrants who died during railroad construction because of unregulated working conditions .
i.e. these were plutocratic , not libertarian political conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Railroad companies (UP, SP etc.
) were heavily subsidized in the 19th century by federal land grants and loans.
Then there's the thousands of Chinese, Italians, Irish etc.
immigrants who died during railroad construction because of unregulated working conditions.
i.e. these were plutocratic, not libertarian political conditions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851829</id>
	<title>I was reading along and then I got to the part...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256293200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...where you showed yourself to be an idiot.</p><p>No, you're not a Jeffersonian.  Read his damned writings, you ignoramus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...where you showed yourself to be an idiot.No , you 're not a Jeffersonian .
Read his damned writings , you ignoramus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...where you showed yourself to be an idiot.No, you're not a Jeffersonian.
Read his damned writings, you ignoramus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848727</id>
	<title>Libertarianism is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big L Libertarians are mostly just a bunch of conservative Republican douchebags who jumped ship when their party was taken over and basically destroyed from within by Neocon wingnuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big L Libertarians are mostly just a bunch of conservative Republican douchebags who jumped ship when their party was taken over and basically destroyed from within by Neocon wingnuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big L Libertarians are mostly just a bunch of conservative Republican douchebags who jumped ship when their party was taken over and basically destroyed from within by Neocon wingnuts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381</id>
	<title>An old Ronald Reagan quote is still true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory."</p><p>I like libertarian philiosophy myself, but the nuts in the crowd can't understand that markets/politics is a synthesis of human psychology and behaviors perturbed by random events, and doesn't have some underlying grand unified theory like physics.   Real life has, and always will be, a muddle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory .
" I like libertarian philiosophy myself , but the nuts in the crowd ca n't understand that markets/politics is a synthesis of human psychology and behaviors perturbed by random events , and does n't have some underlying grand unified theory like physics .
Real life has , and always will be , a muddle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory.
"I like libertarian philiosophy myself, but the nuts in the crowd can't understand that markets/politics is a synthesis of human psychology and behaviors perturbed by random events, and doesn't have some underlying grand unified theory like physics.
Real life has, and always will be, a muddle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852277</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1256296020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Therefore, in order to counter this fascism, we must find these evil libertarians and drag them out of their beds in the night and take them to concen...sorry, HAPPY camps, where they will be re-educated/incinerated in ovens.<br> <br>

Honestly, how can you think that a philosophy that is fundamentally pacifist can be in any way similar to an inherently violent ideology like fascism?  That's like saying that white is black because it becomes black over time, therefore black is less black than white.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Therefore , in order to counter this fascism , we must find these evil libertarians and drag them out of their beds in the night and take them to concen...sorry , HAPPY camps , where they will be re-educated/incinerated in ovens .
Honestly , how can you think that a philosophy that is fundamentally pacifist can be in any way similar to an inherently violent ideology like fascism ?
That 's like saying that white is black because it becomes black over time , therefore black is less black than white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Therefore, in order to counter this fascism, we must find these evil libertarians and drag them out of their beds in the night and take them to concen...sorry, HAPPY camps, where they will be re-educated/incinerated in ovens.
Honestly, how can you think that a philosophy that is fundamentally pacifist can be in any way similar to an inherently violent ideology like fascism?
That's like saying that white is black because it becomes black over time, therefore black is less black than white.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848291</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>edmicman</author>
	<datestamp>1256322840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I see it, EVERYONE ultimately is a selfish bastard at heart.  The one true human constant is that a person will work in their own self-interest.  Sure, there may be few that appear to be unselfish, but I say they are still ultimately doing what they do for themselves.  I don't understand where people get this notion that we have any chance at this utopian society where everyone helps out everyone else.  It's not gonna happen.  Our best bet is to use that constant (that every individual works in their own best interest) to try and direct it for more positive group benefits than negative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I see it , EVERYONE ultimately is a selfish bastard at heart .
The one true human constant is that a person will work in their own self-interest .
Sure , there may be few that appear to be unselfish , but I say they are still ultimately doing what they do for themselves .
I do n't understand where people get this notion that we have any chance at this utopian society where everyone helps out everyone else .
It 's not gon na happen .
Our best bet is to use that constant ( that every individual works in their own best interest ) to try and direct it for more positive group benefits than negative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I see it, EVERYONE ultimately is a selfish bastard at heart.
The one true human constant is that a person will work in their own self-interest.
Sure, there may be few that appear to be unselfish, but I say they are still ultimately doing what they do for themselves.
I don't understand where people get this notion that we have any chance at this utopian society where everyone helps out everyone else.
It's not gonna happen.
Our best bet is to use that constant (that every individual works in their own best interest) to try and direct it for more positive group benefits than negative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849267</id>
	<title>This should not be news!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1256326320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me give Slashdot a simple formula.<br>If the title contains Republicans  or Democrats  or Libertarians  or Communists or Socialists or Liberals or Conservatives it needs to go into the politics section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me give Slashdot a simple formula.If the title contains Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or Communists or Socialists or Liberals or Conservatives it needs to go into the politics section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me give Slashdot a simple formula.If the title contains Republicans  or Democrats  or Libertarians  or Communists or Socialists or Liberals or Conservatives it needs to go into the politics section.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852961</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarian / Laissez Faire / Free Market</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1256302020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Markets don't have objectives; people have objectives. A "free market" is simply a market that has the quality or state of being free. How you got from here to there I can not fathom.</p><p>"Free" here means nothing more than "unencumbered." A market that is unencumbered is a market in which buyers and sellers are able to exchange the goods and services each posses at any rate, in any quantity, and at any time. Free is simple.</p><p>A market, free or not, has no objective. It is not rational. It cares not for maximization or minimization. It does not know of distribution of wealth. It is not right or wrong, and is no respecter of persons, even of their relative freedom or lack thereof. All these are irrelevant to whether or not a market is free.</p><p>Participants in a market may be moral or immoral, but a market is neither.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Markets do n't have objectives ; people have objectives .
A " free market " is simply a market that has the quality or state of being free .
How you got from here to there I can not fathom .
" Free " here means nothing more than " unencumbered .
" A market that is unencumbered is a market in which buyers and sellers are able to exchange the goods and services each posses at any rate , in any quantity , and at any time .
Free is simple.A market , free or not , has no objective .
It is not rational .
It cares not for maximization or minimization .
It does not know of distribution of wealth .
It is not right or wrong , and is no respecter of persons , even of their relative freedom or lack thereof .
All these are irrelevant to whether or not a market is free.Participants in a market may be moral or immoral , but a market is neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Markets don't have objectives; people have objectives.
A "free market" is simply a market that has the quality or state of being free.
How you got from here to there I can not fathom.
"Free" here means nothing more than "unencumbered.
" A market that is unencumbered is a market in which buyers and sellers are able to exchange the goods and services each posses at any rate, in any quantity, and at any time.
Free is simple.A market, free or not, has no objective.
It is not rational.
It cares not for maximization or minimization.
It does not know of distribution of wealth.
It is not right or wrong, and is no respecter of persons, even of their relative freedom or lack thereof.
All these are irrelevant to whether or not a market is free.Participants in a market may be moral or immoral, but a market is neither.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063</id>
	<title>Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

I posit that one of the most prized products of Capitalism and the free market is to reduce the cost for the end consumer and raise the quality of the products and services.  Now, the scientific formula for deciding the positive effectiveness of this is: (customer's percieved value)/(actual retail cost) <br> <br>

So you can see that as the actual retail cost approaches zero, the positive effects of capitalism approach infinity!  Unfortunately when the actual cost is zero, it's undefined and your interpretation may vary.  <br> <br>

Basically I suggest open source software people instruct these complaining parties to donate a penny or fraction of a penny to once again make them look like the epitome of our capitalistic system at work.  Anyone else (who <i>isn't</i> stupid) may continue to use it for free and -- at least in the case of open source software -- enjoy unparalleled benefits like being able to modify and redistribute the source let alone view it.  Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I posit that one of the most prized products of Capitalism and the free market is to reduce the cost for the end consumer and raise the quality of the products and services .
Now , the scientific formula for deciding the positive effectiveness of this is : ( customer 's percieved value ) / ( actual retail cost ) So you can see that as the actual retail cost approaches zero , the positive effects of capitalism approach infinity !
Unfortunately when the actual cost is zero , it 's undefined and your interpretation may vary .
Basically I suggest open source software people instruct these complaining parties to donate a penny or fraction of a penny to once again make them look like the epitome of our capitalistic system at work .
Anyone else ( who is n't stupid ) may continue to use it for free and -- at least in the case of open source software -- enjoy unparalleled benefits like being able to modify and redistribute the source let alone view it .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

I posit that one of the most prized products of Capitalism and the free market is to reduce the cost for the end consumer and raise the quality of the products and services.
Now, the scientific formula for deciding the positive effectiveness of this is: (customer's percieved value)/(actual retail cost)  

So you can see that as the actual retail cost approaches zero, the positive effects of capitalism approach infinity!
Unfortunately when the actual cost is zero, it's undefined and your interpretation may vary.
Basically I suggest open source software people instruct these complaining parties to donate a penny or fraction of a penny to once again make them look like the epitome of our capitalistic system at work.
Anyone else (who isn't stupid) may continue to use it for free and -- at least in the case of open source software -- enjoy unparalleled benefits like being able to modify and redistribute the source let alone view it.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849469</id>
	<title>The third option</title>
	<author>rokstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256327100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading through a number of comments i'm surprised that it seems that no one here has read the Cathedral and the Bazaar.  There is a third option other than the Market Economy (capitalism) and the Command Economy (Socialism); the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift\_economy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">gift economy.</a> [wikipedia.org]  Raymond makes a pretty decent case as to why Free Software neither socialism or capitalism.  Which is great because it frees us from this stupid dicatomy which, lets face it, is really just an excuse to say that "my economic model is better than yours, and Free Software proves it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading through a number of comments i 'm surprised that it seems that no one here has read the Cathedral and the Bazaar .
There is a third option other than the Market Economy ( capitalism ) and the Command Economy ( Socialism ) ; the gift economy .
[ wikipedia.org ] Raymond makes a pretty decent case as to why Free Software neither socialism or capitalism .
Which is great because it frees us from this stupid dicatomy which , lets face it , is really just an excuse to say that " my economic model is better than yours , and Free Software proves it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading through a number of comments i'm surprised that it seems that no one here has read the Cathedral and the Bazaar.
There is a third option other than the Market Economy (capitalism) and the Command Economy (Socialism); the gift economy.
[wikipedia.org]  Raymond makes a pretty decent case as to why Free Software neither socialism or capitalism.
Which is great because it frees us from this stupid dicatomy which, lets face it, is really just an excuse to say that "my economic model is better than yours, and Free Software proves it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848009</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1256322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a self proclaimed libertarian, and FOSS certainly does fit within my ideologies, although net neutrality doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a self proclaimed libertarian , and FOSS certainly does fit within my ideologies , although net neutrality does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a self proclaimed libertarian, and FOSS certainly does fit within my ideologies, although net neutrality doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>kwiqsilver</author>
	<datestamp>1256325600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith's philosophy. At most it's a baby step in the right direction.
</p><p>We follow the philosophy of people like von Mises or Murray Rothbard: every individual has a right to his life, liberty, and everything derived from it (e.g. his income and property) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others, he should be free to act in his own self interest.
</p><p>The modern corporate state is anathema to this view. We are Jeffersonians, and the ruling elite (of both major parties--which most libertarians don't consider to be any different) are Hamiltonians. We have these mega-corps, because the politicians and bureaucrats are in the pockets of big business, and no matter how campaign financing gets reformed, they always will be, as long as they have the power to write and enforce laws. The regulations in place to "protect the consumers" are designed by the big companies to eliminate the competition. Why does Wal-Mart want to increase minimum wage? Because they believe in a glorious society where everyone is wealthy? Or because they can afford it, while the mom-n-pops that they haven't yet killed off, who are barely scraping by, can't afford it?
</p><p>Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps, with no real innovation or market competition.
</p><p>I don't know a single true libertarian who has any issue with open source; ESR is well known as a libertarian. Many of us do have issues with RMS and his line of thinking. In addition to being an admitted socialist, he has implied, if not outright stated, that he would like to use force to make all software free as in speech. Libertarianism says that the owners of software should decide how to release it, and the market (i.e. we, the customers) should decide with our dollars whether to support them or not.
</p><p>Libertarians oppose "net neutrality" because there's nothing neutral about it. It's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others. If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them. Do you think people will be more loyal to Commcast and stop using Google, or more loyal to Google and ditch Commcast? If you live someplace where you're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly (more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp) or a very rural residence, then you might get screwed. But as technology advances (and regulations disappear), we'll have dozens of choices for net access, and the marketplace will act to reduce prices, as it does in all other fields.
</p><p>The other, and more insidious, downside to "net neutrality" is where it will lead. Governments never shrink willingly, they only grow. The income tax, which was never supposed to exceed 1\% or affect anyone other than a few hundred super-rich, now takes a third of the average American's earnings. Interstate commerce, which at one point meant goods shipped across state lines for sale in another state, now includes customers at a restaurant (they <i>could</i> be from out of state, after all), ducks (the do migrate across state lines), and even marijuana grown in California and sold in California to residents of California (the sale of local grown goods reduces the need for imports, affecting interstate commerce). Does anyone honestly expect the Feds not to follow up net neutrality with a powergrab for more? Federal online sales tax anyone? Federal licensing for "broadcasting" a website or blog? Federal control of what you can say on a blog about politics? Federal regulations on encryption, requiring a backdoor, so they can monitor everything? And how about, complete government control over the entire internet? It is an "essential service" like roads, or health care, much too important to be left to the whim of the free market. Sounds lovely, doesn't it?

</p><p>Most so called libertarian think tanks, like Cato, have been corrupted by the corporatists (i.e. Republi-crats) and shill for big business. Even the Libertarian Party (capital-L is the party, lowercase-l is the philosophy) has started to turn into a beltway insider group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith 's philosophy .
At most it 's a baby step in the right direction .
We follow the philosophy of people like von Mises or Murray Rothbard : every individual has a right to his life , liberty , and everything derived from it ( e.g .
his income and property ) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others , he should be free to act in his own self interest .
The modern corporate state is anathema to this view .
We are Jeffersonians , and the ruling elite ( of both major parties--which most libertarians do n't consider to be any different ) are Hamiltonians .
We have these mega-corps , because the politicians and bureaucrats are in the pockets of big business , and no matter how campaign financing gets reformed , they always will be , as long as they have the power to write and enforce laws .
The regulations in place to " protect the consumers " are designed by the big companies to eliminate the competition .
Why does Wal-Mart want to increase minimum wage ?
Because they believe in a glorious society where everyone is wealthy ?
Or because they can afford it , while the mom-n-pops that they have n't yet killed off , who are barely scraping by , ca n't afford it ?
Big , bloated , inefficient government leads to big , bloated , inefficient corps , with no real innovation or market competition .
I do n't know a single true libertarian who has any issue with open source ; ESR is well known as a libertarian .
Many of us do have issues with RMS and his line of thinking .
In addition to being an admitted socialist , he has implied , if not outright stated , that he would like to use force to make all software free as in speech .
Libertarianism says that the owners of software should decide how to release it , and the market ( i.e .
we , the customers ) should decide with our dollars whether to support them or not .
Libertarians oppose " net neutrality " because there 's nothing neutral about it .
It 's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others .
If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google , let them .
Do you think people will be more loyal to Commcast and stop using Google , or more loyal to Google and ditch Commcast ?
If you live someplace where you 're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly ( more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp ) or a very rural residence , then you might get screwed .
But as technology advances ( and regulations disappear ) , we 'll have dozens of choices for net access , and the marketplace will act to reduce prices , as it does in all other fields .
The other , and more insidious , downside to " net neutrality " is where it will lead .
Governments never shrink willingly , they only grow .
The income tax , which was never supposed to exceed 1 \ % or affect anyone other than a few hundred super-rich , now takes a third of the average American 's earnings .
Interstate commerce , which at one point meant goods shipped across state lines for sale in another state , now includes customers at a restaurant ( they could be from out of state , after all ) , ducks ( the do migrate across state lines ) , and even marijuana grown in California and sold in California to residents of California ( the sale of local grown goods reduces the need for imports , affecting interstate commerce ) .
Does anyone honestly expect the Feds not to follow up net neutrality with a powergrab for more ?
Federal online sales tax anyone ?
Federal licensing for " broadcasting " a website or blog ?
Federal control of what you can say on a blog about politics ?
Federal regulations on encryption , requiring a backdoor , so they can monitor everything ?
And how about , complete government control over the entire internet ?
It is an " essential service " like roads , or health care , much too important to be left to the whim of the free market .
Sounds lovely , does n't it ?
Most so called libertarian think tanks , like Cato , have been corrupted by the corporatists ( i.e .
Republi-crats ) and shill for big business .
Even the Libertarian Party ( capital-L is the party , lowercase-l is the philosophy ) has started to turn into a beltway insider group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith's philosophy.
At most it's a baby step in the right direction.
We follow the philosophy of people like von Mises or Murray Rothbard: every individual has a right to his life, liberty, and everything derived from it (e.g.
his income and property) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others, he should be free to act in his own self interest.
The modern corporate state is anathema to this view.
We are Jeffersonians, and the ruling elite (of both major parties--which most libertarians don't consider to be any different) are Hamiltonians.
We have these mega-corps, because the politicians and bureaucrats are in the pockets of big business, and no matter how campaign financing gets reformed, they always will be, as long as they have the power to write and enforce laws.
The regulations in place to "protect the consumers" are designed by the big companies to eliminate the competition.
Why does Wal-Mart want to increase minimum wage?
Because they believe in a glorious society where everyone is wealthy?
Or because they can afford it, while the mom-n-pops that they haven't yet killed off, who are barely scraping by, can't afford it?
Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps, with no real innovation or market competition.
I don't know a single true libertarian who has any issue with open source; ESR is well known as a libertarian.
Many of us do have issues with RMS and his line of thinking.
In addition to being an admitted socialist, he has implied, if not outright stated, that he would like to use force to make all software free as in speech.
Libertarianism says that the owners of software should decide how to release it, and the market (i.e.
we, the customers) should decide with our dollars whether to support them or not.
Libertarians oppose "net neutrality" because there's nothing neutral about it.
It's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others.
If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them.
Do you think people will be more loyal to Commcast and stop using Google, or more loyal to Google and ditch Commcast?
If you live someplace where you're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly (more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp) or a very rural residence, then you might get screwed.
But as technology advances (and regulations disappear), we'll have dozens of choices for net access, and the marketplace will act to reduce prices, as it does in all other fields.
The other, and more insidious, downside to "net neutrality" is where it will lead.
Governments never shrink willingly, they only grow.
The income tax, which was never supposed to exceed 1\% or affect anyone other than a few hundred super-rich, now takes a third of the average American's earnings.
Interstate commerce, which at one point meant goods shipped across state lines for sale in another state, now includes customers at a restaurant (they could be from out of state, after all), ducks (the do migrate across state lines), and even marijuana grown in California and sold in California to residents of California (the sale of local grown goods reduces the need for imports, affecting interstate commerce).
Does anyone honestly expect the Feds not to follow up net neutrality with a powergrab for more?
Federal online sales tax anyone?
Federal licensing for "broadcasting" a website or blog?
Federal control of what you can say on a blog about politics?
Federal regulations on encryption, requiring a backdoor, so they can monitor everything?
And how about, complete government control over the entire internet?
It is an "essential service" like roads, or health care, much too important to be left to the whim of the free market.
Sounds lovely, doesn't it?
Most so called libertarian think tanks, like Cato, have been corrupted by the corporatists (i.e.
Republi-crats) and shill for big business.
Even the Libertarian Party (capital-L is the party, lowercase-l is the philosophy) has started to turn into a beltway insider group.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847359</id>
	<title>Re:Please Read My Blog</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1256319480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait.... Where's the link to your blog again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait.... Where 's the link to your blog again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.... Where's the link to your blog again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847625</id>
	<title>John Galt complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Liberarians tend to focus on "my freedom" more than on "your freedom".</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, a lot of them focus on the freedoms of their imaginary future selves and on the vast fortunes they are surely going to amass. See Joe the Plumber. So they end up defending big corporations and rich people, even if those pollute and exploit. The free market rhetoric is just a facade to sound somewhat reasonable.</p><p>Libertarianism itself has valuable insights and should be taken seriously. It is spoiled by those who read Ayn Rand as teenagers and took up a professional career in corporate sponsored think tank libertarianism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Liberarians tend to focus on " my freedom " more than on " your freedom " .Actually , a lot of them focus on the freedoms of their imaginary future selves and on the vast fortunes they are surely going to amass .
See Joe the Plumber .
So they end up defending big corporations and rich people , even if those pollute and exploit .
The free market rhetoric is just a facade to sound somewhat reasonable.Libertarianism itself has valuable insights and should be taken seriously .
It is spoiled by those who read Ayn Rand as teenagers and took up a professional career in corporate sponsored think tank libertarianism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberarians tend to focus on "my freedom" more than on "your freedom".Actually, a lot of them focus on the freedoms of their imaginary future selves and on the vast fortunes they are surely going to amass.
See Joe the Plumber.
So they end up defending big corporations and rich people, even if those pollute and exploit.
The free market rhetoric is just a facade to sound somewhat reasonable.Libertarianism itself has valuable insights and should be taken seriously.
It is spoiled by those who read Ayn Rand as teenagers and took up a professional career in corporate sponsored think tank libertarianism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849693</id>
	<title>Re: old customs die hard</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1256327940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice troll. I'll bite.</p><p>Read about the Federal Reserve and it's role in banking. Then get back to me and tell me with a straight face that we have a "free market" in the US.</p><p>It is true that our banking system is very market-oriented, and I probably even agree with you that regulation is needed to avoid large boom and bust cycles at the cost of overall efficiency. But don't get disingenuous with your critiques.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice troll .
I 'll bite.Read about the Federal Reserve and it 's role in banking .
Then get back to me and tell me with a straight face that we have a " free market " in the US.It is true that our banking system is very market-oriented , and I probably even agree with you that regulation is needed to avoid large boom and bust cycles at the cost of overall efficiency .
But do n't get disingenuous with your critiques .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice troll.
I'll bite.Read about the Federal Reserve and it's role in banking.
Then get back to me and tell me with a straight face that we have a "free market" in the US.It is true that our banking system is very market-oriented, and I probably even agree with you that regulation is needed to avoid large boom and bust cycles at the cost of overall efficiency.
But don't get disingenuous with your critiques.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847701</id>
	<title>The problem is that the GPL imposes obligations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL has a place in some shared infrastructure, but the newest rev (gplv3) was a complete failure. It tried to dictate what developers could do with their own creations. No surprise that the GPLv3 was rejected by the marketplace. All this talk about the rights of users of software without addressing those doing the work or paying the bills is doomed to irrelevance.</p><p>What we need is a fork of GPLv2 without the patent language and the exceptions stuff that allows it to become a badgeware license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL has a place in some shared infrastructure , but the newest rev ( gplv3 ) was a complete failure .
It tried to dictate what developers could do with their own creations .
No surprise that the GPLv3 was rejected by the marketplace .
All this talk about the rights of users of software without addressing those doing the work or paying the bills is doomed to irrelevance.What we need is a fork of GPLv2 without the patent language and the exceptions stuff that allows it to become a badgeware license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL has a place in some shared infrastructure, but the newest rev (gplv3) was a complete failure.
It tried to dictate what developers could do with their own creations.
No surprise that the GPLv3 was rejected by the marketplace.
All this talk about the rights of users of software without addressing those doing the work or paying the bills is doomed to irrelevance.What we need is a fork of GPLv2 without the patent language and the exceptions stuff that allows it to become a badgeware license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850229</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256330100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll assume you're dropping the whole public requirement from the Internet.</p><p>We would likely have different connection protocols from different organizations at local levels, and they would be interconnected further up the line by computers that can speak multiple protocols. Perhaps wireless communication protocols would have developed to assist at the early stages, or perhaps things would have been delayed until wireless communication progressed enough. Maybe AOL would have survived longer, or even become the main guy running things overall. In any case, self-interest would ensure that people would connect to competitors to increase their scope.</p><p>Google would probably want to buy a stake in the "backbone", or at least set up a solid business agreement at their current size. Whether or not Google could exist at the current size is unknown though.</p><p>I'm not sure why backbone peering would be any different. Both sides of each agreement would still have the exact same cost/benefit if all else were the same, so would likely enter the same agreement.</p><p>Oh yea, ARPAnet. I have no idea why you need that cited. Experiments that aren't guaranteed to prove profitable existed long before ARPAnet, so someone would have done it at some point.</p><p>I suspect nobody can pass your test as it seems arbitrary, and you likely believe in some special magic that makes the world fall apart if rules aren't in place. The self-interest of people is far more powerful than laws, and libertarians just believe in leveraging that self-interest in place of most laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll assume you 're dropping the whole public requirement from the Internet.We would likely have different connection protocols from different organizations at local levels , and they would be interconnected further up the line by computers that can speak multiple protocols .
Perhaps wireless communication protocols would have developed to assist at the early stages , or perhaps things would have been delayed until wireless communication progressed enough .
Maybe AOL would have survived longer , or even become the main guy running things overall .
In any case , self-interest would ensure that people would connect to competitors to increase their scope.Google would probably want to buy a stake in the " backbone " , or at least set up a solid business agreement at their current size .
Whether or not Google could exist at the current size is unknown though.I 'm not sure why backbone peering would be any different .
Both sides of each agreement would still have the exact same cost/benefit if all else were the same , so would likely enter the same agreement.Oh yea , ARPAnet .
I have no idea why you need that cited .
Experiments that are n't guaranteed to prove profitable existed long before ARPAnet , so someone would have done it at some point.I suspect nobody can pass your test as it seems arbitrary , and you likely believe in some special magic that makes the world fall apart if rules are n't in place .
The self-interest of people is far more powerful than laws , and libertarians just believe in leveraging that self-interest in place of most laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll assume you're dropping the whole public requirement from the Internet.We would likely have different connection protocols from different organizations at local levels, and they would be interconnected further up the line by computers that can speak multiple protocols.
Perhaps wireless communication protocols would have developed to assist at the early stages, or perhaps things would have been delayed until wireless communication progressed enough.
Maybe AOL would have survived longer, or even become the main guy running things overall.
In any case, self-interest would ensure that people would connect to competitors to increase their scope.Google would probably want to buy a stake in the "backbone", or at least set up a solid business agreement at their current size.
Whether or not Google could exist at the current size is unknown though.I'm not sure why backbone peering would be any different.
Both sides of each agreement would still have the exact same cost/benefit if all else were the same, so would likely enter the same agreement.Oh yea, ARPAnet.
I have no idea why you need that cited.
Experiments that aren't guaranteed to prove profitable existed long before ARPAnet, so someone would have done it at some point.I suspect nobody can pass your test as it seems arbitrary, and you likely believe in some special magic that makes the world fall apart if rules aren't in place.
The self-interest of people is far more powerful than laws, and libertarians just believe in leveraging that self-interest in place of most laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848179</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1256322480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i want to go to the regulated free market to by some fresh frozen jumbo shrimp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i want to go to the regulated free market to by some fresh frozen jumbo shrimp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i want to go to the regulated free market to by some fresh frozen jumbo shrimp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847453</id>
	<title>Not terribly surprising...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1256319900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While "Libertarian", in principle, comes down to a fairly tight set of notions about state noninterference, there are in practice a large number of ostensible "libertarians" that are pretty much strictly anti-regulation and pro-(specific)business, rather than libertarian as such.<br> <br>

Anyone who is against the activities of a group of volunteers, doing as they wish with the fruits of their labor, and offering goods under their chosen terms(Yes Virginia, the GPL is simply a voluntary private contract, not some conspiracy to oppress you) just because there isn't enough money and market-rhetoric involved is a damn shoddy libertarian. Of course, anyone who argues against the environmental regulations that prevent people from unilaterally poisoning my person and property is also a damn shoddy libertarian, and we have masses of those.<br> <br>

While certain flavors of market capitalism(and potentially even limited liability corporations) can be libertarian arrangements, anybody who mistakes supporting those for being a libertarian is, as they say, Doin' it Wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While " Libertarian " , in principle , comes down to a fairly tight set of notions about state noninterference , there are in practice a large number of ostensible " libertarians " that are pretty much strictly anti-regulation and pro- ( specific ) business , rather than libertarian as such .
Anyone who is against the activities of a group of volunteers , doing as they wish with the fruits of their labor , and offering goods under their chosen terms ( Yes Virginia , the GPL is simply a voluntary private contract , not some conspiracy to oppress you ) just because there is n't enough money and market-rhetoric involved is a damn shoddy libertarian .
Of course , anyone who argues against the environmental regulations that prevent people from unilaterally poisoning my person and property is also a damn shoddy libertarian , and we have masses of those .
While certain flavors of market capitalism ( and potentially even limited liability corporations ) can be libertarian arrangements , anybody who mistakes supporting those for being a libertarian is , as they say , Doin ' it Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While "Libertarian", in principle, comes down to a fairly tight set of notions about state noninterference, there are in practice a large number of ostensible "libertarians" that are pretty much strictly anti-regulation and pro-(specific)business, rather than libertarian as such.
Anyone who is against the activities of a group of volunteers, doing as they wish with the fruits of their labor, and offering goods under their chosen terms(Yes Virginia, the GPL is simply a voluntary private contract, not some conspiracy to oppress you) just because there isn't enough money and market-rhetoric involved is a damn shoddy libertarian.
Of course, anyone who argues against the environmental regulations that prevent people from unilaterally poisoning my person and property is also a damn shoddy libertarian, and we have masses of those.
While certain flavors of market capitalism(and potentially even limited liability corporations) can be libertarian arrangements, anybody who mistakes supporting those for being a libertarian is, as they say, Doin' it Wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29856777</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>sputnikid</author>
	<datestamp>1256400840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When ALL of the ISPs decide to start charging for each website viewed is the day I start my own ISP and collect the millions of people who would rather surf the Internet for "free" (with the obvious monthly connection costs).</p><p>I can't wait until they start charging per site (although I believe they NEVER will) as it will economically be like shooting fish in a barrel for the growth of my new ISP business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When ALL of the ISPs decide to start charging for each website viewed is the day I start my own ISP and collect the millions of people who would rather surf the Internet for " free " ( with the obvious monthly connection costs ) .I ca n't wait until they start charging per site ( although I believe they NEVER will ) as it will economically be like shooting fish in a barrel for the growth of my new ISP business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When ALL of the ISPs decide to start charging for each website viewed is the day I start my own ISP and collect the millions of people who would rather surf the Internet for "free" (with the obvious monthly connection costs).I can't wait until they start charging per site (although I believe they NEVER will) as it will economically be like shooting fish in a barrel for the growth of my new ISP business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848347</id>
	<title>Re:Not all Libertarians are Free Market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a free society to remain free for more than a brief moment, it must have a law preventing a person from taking away the freedom of others -Exactly like the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a free society to remain free for more than a brief moment , it must have a law preventing a person from taking away the freedom of others -Exactly like the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a free society to remain free for more than a brief moment, it must have a law preventing a person from taking away the freedom of others -Exactly like the GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852227</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256295720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith's philosophy.</p> </div><p>Of course, there's no such thing as a "true libertarian," so your argument falls apart in the first sentence. Really, I wonder why people persist on lumping themselves in these categories. It's particularly ironic when dicussing libertarianism, because isn't it supposed to be about the individual? But instead of being an individual, you define yourself by way of these token political groupings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith 's philosophy .
Of course , there 's no such thing as a " true libertarian , " so your argument falls apart in the first sentence .
Really , I wonder why people persist on lumping themselves in these categories .
It 's particularly ironic when dicussing libertarianism , because is n't it supposed to be about the individual ?
But instead of being an individual , you define yourself by way of these token political groupings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True libertarians do not believe in Adam Smith's philosophy.
Of course, there's no such thing as a "true libertarian," so your argument falls apart in the first sentence.
Really, I wonder why people persist on lumping themselves in these categories.
It's particularly ironic when dicussing libertarianism, because isn't it supposed to be about the individual?
But instead of being an individual, you define yourself by way of these token political groupings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851041</id>
	<title>Don't you think it's a little apropos that...</title>
	<author>ThinkDifferently</author>
	<datestamp>1256289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the story on Slashdot immediately preceding this one is <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1512212/The-Science-of-Irrational-Decisions" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">The Science of Irrational Decisions</a> [slashdot.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>the story on Slashdot immediately preceding this one is The Science of Irrational Decisions [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the story on Slashdot immediately preceding this one is The Science of Irrational Decisions [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853521</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>hajus</author>
	<datestamp>1256307780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Person 1:  No libertarian would want this.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Person 2:  I'm a libertarian, and I want this.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Person 1:  No \_true\_ libertarian would want this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the 'No True Scotsman ' fallacy .
    Person 1 : No libertarian would want this .
    Person 2 : I 'm a libertarian , and I want this .
    Person 1 : No \ _true \ _ libertarian would want this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
    Person 1:  No libertarian would want this.
    Person 2:  I'm a libertarian, and I want this.
    Person 1:  No \_true\_ libertarian would want this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851247</id>
	<title>Libertardians Get It Wrong Again -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256290680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, grass is green, the sky has an observed tendency to be blue, and pigs are terrestrial mammals incapable of unassisted flight.</p><p>Let's just call these dopes what they are. They're anarchists. Darwinist anarcho-capitalists, to be exact. In their myopic eyes any foundation that doesn't exist to generate a profit doesn't have a right to exist, the only form of reward human beings are capable of appreciating is currency, and voluntarily giving or working for free is a crime. If mankind bought into this bunk from the outset, we'd still be living in caves. Their simple-minded philosophy is impracticable and disregards practically every observable trait of human nature, psychology, and their extension: society. (For instance, failing to acknowledge that intangible things - even ideas - can be rewarding is a giant red-flag of a sign that they have no clue how people, you know, work. Of course, they'll never acknowledge this since most libertarians live in cult-like philosophical bubbles anyway.)</p><p>Gilded anarchy is still anarchy, and most of society already sees you for what you are - anarchists and corporatist plutocrats in disguise. Go sit in the corner with the radical left, dumbasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , grass is green , the sky has an observed tendency to be blue , and pigs are terrestrial mammals incapable of unassisted flight.Let 's just call these dopes what they are .
They 're anarchists .
Darwinist anarcho-capitalists , to be exact .
In their myopic eyes any foundation that does n't exist to generate a profit does n't have a right to exist , the only form of reward human beings are capable of appreciating is currency , and voluntarily giving or working for free is a crime .
If mankind bought into this bunk from the outset , we 'd still be living in caves .
Their simple-minded philosophy is impracticable and disregards practically every observable trait of human nature , psychology , and their extension : society .
( For instance , failing to acknowledge that intangible things - even ideas - can be rewarding is a giant red-flag of a sign that they have no clue how people , you know , work .
Of course , they 'll never acknowledge this since most libertarians live in cult-like philosophical bubbles anyway .
) Gilded anarchy is still anarchy , and most of society already sees you for what you are - anarchists and corporatist plutocrats in disguise .
Go sit in the corner with the radical left , dumbasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, grass is green, the sky has an observed tendency to be blue, and pigs are terrestrial mammals incapable of unassisted flight.Let's just call these dopes what they are.
They're anarchists.
Darwinist anarcho-capitalists, to be exact.
In their myopic eyes any foundation that doesn't exist to generate a profit doesn't have a right to exist, the only form of reward human beings are capable of appreciating is currency, and voluntarily giving or working for free is a crime.
If mankind bought into this bunk from the outset, we'd still be living in caves.
Their simple-minded philosophy is impracticable and disregards practically every observable trait of human nature, psychology, and their extension: society.
(For instance, failing to acknowledge that intangible things - even ideas - can be rewarding is a giant red-flag of a sign that they have no clue how people, you know, work.
Of course, they'll never acknowledge this since most libertarians live in cult-like philosophical bubbles anyway.
)Gilded anarchy is still anarchy, and most of society already sees you for what you are - anarchists and corporatist plutocrats in disguise.
Go sit in the corner with the radical left, dumbasses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847805</id>
	<title>Libertarians are conservative Anarchists</title>
	<author>jd.schmidt</author>
	<datestamp>1256321280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a big fan of either movement, but the more you look at the movements the more they have in common.  Frankly I think both movements have tapped into, but not fully understood, the idea of our time, Freedom is more important than Communism or Capitalism.  In other words, if you are actually free, then you are free to sell stuff or join a commune or what ever you think appropriate.  Maybe we aren't the first generation to realize this, but still an important break through in light of our recent history (think about the rhetoric of the Cold War).</p><p>I suspect that is also why you get people appearing to switch from ultra left wing to ultra right wing or vice versa.  They are changing their implementation, but not what they are all about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a big fan of either movement , but the more you look at the movements the more they have in common .
Frankly I think both movements have tapped into , but not fully understood , the idea of our time , Freedom is more important than Communism or Capitalism .
In other words , if you are actually free , then you are free to sell stuff or join a commune or what ever you think appropriate .
Maybe we are n't the first generation to realize this , but still an important break through in light of our recent history ( think about the rhetoric of the Cold War ) .I suspect that is also why you get people appearing to switch from ultra left wing to ultra right wing or vice versa .
They are changing their implementation , but not what they are all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a big fan of either movement, but the more you look at the movements the more they have in common.
Frankly I think both movements have tapped into, but not fully understood, the idea of our time, Freedom is more important than Communism or Capitalism.
In other words, if you are actually free, then you are free to sell stuff or join a commune or what ever you think appropriate.
Maybe we aren't the first generation to realize this, but still an important break through in light of our recent history (think about the rhetoric of the Cold War).I suspect that is also why you get people appearing to switch from ultra left wing to ultra right wing or vice versa.
They are changing their implementation, but not what they are all about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207</id>
	<title>Not all Libertarians are Free Market</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1256318880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That particular variety of Libertarian is more what people in the US think of, but they tend to really be more like republicans.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Sort of like not all democrats want abortions and the destruction of the military, not all republicans want freedom and religious facism, and not all greens walk to work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>Not all libertarians are facists, or communists, or free-market/anti-market - take your pick.<br>Most just want maximal individual freedoms with minimal government.</p><p>I'd say the F/OSS market is the BEST expression of Libertarian though, especially the Limited BSD/MIT style licenses. The GPL, well, that's another debate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That particular variety of Libertarian is more what people in the US think of , but they tend to really be more like republicans.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism [ wikipedia.org ] Sort of like not all democrats want abortions and the destruction of the military , not all republicans want freedom and religious facism , and not all greens walk to work : ) Not all libertarians are facists , or communists , or free-market/anti-market - take your pick.Most just want maximal individual freedoms with minimal government.I 'd say the F/OSS market is the BEST expression of Libertarian though , especially the Limited BSD/MIT style licenses .
The GPL , well , that 's another debate ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That particular variety of Libertarian is more what people in the US think of, but they tend to really be more like republicans.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism [wikipedia.org]Sort of like not all democrats want abortions and the destruction of the military, not all republicans want freedom and religious facism, and not all greens walk to work :)Not all libertarians are facists, or communists, or free-market/anti-market - take your pick.Most just want maximal individual freedoms with minimal government.I'd say the F/OSS market is the BEST expression of Libertarian though, especially the Limited BSD/MIT style licenses.
The GPL, well, that's another debate ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850883</id>
	<title>Re:Any true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256289420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Any true libertarian recognizes that copyright is an artificial regulation"</p><p>Property, as defined by Proudhon [1], is an artificial regulation dependent on the state for being upheld. Remove the state and it's violent propping up of capitalist wealth and you will see the diffusion/redistribution of said wealth. The only true libertarian is the libertarian communist (anarchist).</p><p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What\_Is\_Property\%3F" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What\_Is\_Property\%3F</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Any true libertarian recognizes that copyright is an artificial regulation " Property , as defined by Proudhon [ 1 ] , is an artificial regulation dependent on the state for being upheld .
Remove the state and it 's violent propping up of capitalist wealth and you will see the diffusion/redistribution of said wealth .
The only true libertarian is the libertarian communist ( anarchist ) .
[ 1 ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What \ _Is \ _Property \ % 3F [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Any true libertarian recognizes that copyright is an artificial regulation"Property, as defined by Proudhon [1], is an artificial regulation dependent on the state for being upheld.
Remove the state and it's violent propping up of capitalist wealth and you will see the diffusion/redistribution of said wealth.
The only true libertarian is the libertarian communist (anarchist).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What\_Is\_Property\%3F [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854607</id>
	<title>Don't they have some poor to oppress?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who has time to worry about free software when there are DANGEROUS MINORITIES running around out there waiting to rape your family! Remember to stock up on gold and guns!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who has time to worry about free software when there are DANGEROUS MINORITIES running around out there waiting to rape your family !
Remember to stock up on gold and guns !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who has time to worry about free software when there are DANGEROUS MINORITIES running around out there waiting to rape your family!
Remember to stock up on gold and guns!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848253</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1256322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go ahead and ask it of everyone under their own politics, regardless of their political leanings.  Then enjoy talking to nobody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead and ask it of everyone under their own politics , regardless of their political leanings .
Then enjoy talking to nobody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead and ask it of everyone under their own politics, regardless of their political leanings.
Then enjoy talking to nobody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</id>
	<title>Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A simple test that I ask big-L Libertarians to engage in before I will discuss anything political with them on the internet:

</p><p>Explain, in your own words, how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structure. In order to be taken seriously, Be sure to account for how we would have moved beyond the walled-garden networks of the late 80's early 90's, cite ARPAnet, and reference current backbone peering economics, including the recent maneuvering by Google which prompted the whole network neutrality debate in the first place.


</p><p>Nobody's passed it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A simple test that I ask big-L Libertarians to engage in before I will discuss anything political with them on the internet : Explain , in your own words , how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structure .
In order to be taken seriously , Be sure to account for how we would have moved beyond the walled-garden networks of the late 80 's early 90 's , cite ARPAnet , and reference current backbone peering economics , including the recent maneuvering by Google which prompted the whole network neutrality debate in the first place .
Nobody 's passed it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A simple test that I ask big-L Libertarians to engage in before I will discuss anything political with them on the internet:

Explain, in your own words, how the internet as it is presently could possibly have come to exist under a Libertarian political structure.
In order to be taken seriously, Be sure to account for how we would have moved beyond the walled-garden networks of the late 80's early 90's, cite ARPAnet, and reference current backbone peering economics, including the recent maneuvering by Google which prompted the whole network neutrality debate in the first place.
Nobody's passed it yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852543</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256298060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not the ones asking for handouts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not the ones asking for handouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not the ones asking for handouts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847975</id>
	<title>Re:Not all Libertarians are Free Market</title>
	<author>voisine</author>
	<datestamp>1256321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and not all greens walk to work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Riding a bike is more efficient than walking. Fewer calories per mile. Those calories have to come from somewhere.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and not all greens walk to work : ) Riding a bike is more efficient than walking .
Fewer calories per mile .
Those calories have to come from somewhere .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and not all greens walk to work :)Riding a bike is more efficient than walking.
Fewer calories per mile.
Those calories have to come from somewhere.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847905</id>
	<title>Re:True Libertarians...</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1256321640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except how are any 'tube' providers going to get a pipe to your house? The government lets them use 'their' right of way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except how are any 'tube ' providers going to get a pipe to your house ?
The government lets them use 'their ' right of way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except how are any 'tube' providers going to get a pipe to your house?
The government lets them use 'their' right of way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851635</id>
	<title>Re:"Heartland Institute"?</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1256292180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ron Paul isn't a libertarian either, and the Libertarian Party is a party of plutocrats who like to handwave the fact that corporate entities are just as bad as the government and figured that an ideology name they grabbed from people like Proudhon, Thoreau and Rothbard sounded nice enough for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ron Paul is n't a libertarian either , and the Libertarian Party is a party of plutocrats who like to handwave the fact that corporate entities are just as bad as the government and figured that an ideology name they grabbed from people like Proudhon , Thoreau and Rothbard sounded nice enough for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ron Paul isn't a libertarian either, and the Libertarian Party is a party of plutocrats who like to handwave the fact that corporate entities are just as bad as the government and figured that an ideology name they grabbed from people like Proudhon, Thoreau and Rothbard sounded nice enough for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848861</id>
	<title>what they used to say</title>
	<author>SixAndFiftyThree</author>
	<datestamp>1256324760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember, back in 1993, explaining Open Source to a neutral third party in the presence of a self-proclaimed Libertarian (not sure if he used a capital L<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... writing had not yet been invented then, y'know).  He heard me out, then launched into a diatribe about how Richard Stallman was a Bad Guy because, among other reasons, he was charging absurdly high prices for ports of GNU to certain hardware platforms.</p><p>When a Libertarian denies that a business has the right to charge any price it chooses for a product or service (and go out of business if nobody feels like paying that price, or make vast profits if enough people do feel like paying it), please give me some Socialists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember , back in 1993 , explaining Open Source to a neutral third party in the presence of a self-proclaimed Libertarian ( not sure if he used a capital L ... writing had not yet been invented then , y'know ) .
He heard me out , then launched into a diatribe about how Richard Stallman was a Bad Guy because , among other reasons , he was charging absurdly high prices for ports of GNU to certain hardware platforms.When a Libertarian denies that a business has the right to charge any price it chooses for a product or service ( and go out of business if nobody feels like paying that price , or make vast profits if enough people do feel like paying it ) , please give me some Socialists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember, back in 1993, explaining Open Source to a neutral third party in the presence of a self-proclaimed Libertarian (not sure if he used a capital L ... writing had not yet been invented then, y'know).
He heard me out, then launched into a diatribe about how Richard Stallman was a Bad Guy because, among other reasons, he was charging absurdly high prices for ports of GNU to certain hardware platforms.When a Libertarian denies that a business has the right to charge any price it chooses for a product or service (and go out of business if nobody feels like paying that price, or make vast profits if enough people do feel like paying it), please give me some Socialists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665</id>
	<title>Par for the course</title>
	<author>alanmusician</author>
	<datestamp>1256320740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I tend toward moderate libertarian ideals myself, this is a great example of why I always end up feeling alienated from the party itself. They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugs, having your own private tank, or some other extremist nonsense, and when they're not doing that they're pulling stuff like this that isn't even in line with their supposed values. There are some brilliant men in the party, but they usually end up taking a back seat to the louder-speaking loonies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I tend toward moderate libertarian ideals myself , this is a great example of why I always end up feeling alienated from the party itself .
They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugs , having your own private tank , or some other extremist nonsense , and when they 're not doing that they 're pulling stuff like this that is n't even in line with their supposed values .
There are some brilliant men in the party , but they usually end up taking a back seat to the louder-speaking loonies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I tend toward moderate libertarian ideals myself, this is a great example of why I always end up feeling alienated from the party itself.
They always end up harping on legalizing hard drugs, having your own private tank, or some other extremist nonsense, and when they're not doing that they're pulling stuff like this that isn't even in line with their supposed values.
There are some brilliant men in the party, but they usually end up taking a back seat to the louder-speaking loonies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849401</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>zarkill</author>
	<datestamp>1256326860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Whitest Kids U'Know said it best:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Aqfp5iMnw" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Aqfp5iMnw</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Whitest Kids U'Know said it best : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = h2Aqfp5iMnw [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Whitest Kids U'Know said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Aqfp5iMnw [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850407</id>
	<title>Monopoly and oligopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256330760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you live someplace where you're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly (more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp) or a very rural residence, then you might get screwed.</p> </div><p>Monopoly and oligopoly very rarely come about in small communities solely as a result of some evil government granted monopoly. You get those sorts of situations even in countries that have free market economies simply because of the small size of many communities which means that the local market which will not support two providers. This goes for many kinds of service and business in small communities from the local airline to the grocery store. Believe it or not there actually is evil in this world that isn't the fault of governments and that the magical hand of the free and utterly deregulated market cannot cure. I'm not even going to try to tackle the rest of your libertarian dribble, arguing with you people is like debating science with a creationist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you live someplace where you 're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly ( more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp ) or a very rural residence , then you might get screwed .
Monopoly and oligopoly very rarely come about in small communities solely as a result of some evil government granted monopoly .
You get those sorts of situations even in countries that have free market economies simply because of the small size of many communities which means that the local market which will not support two providers .
This goes for many kinds of service and business in small communities from the local airline to the grocery store .
Believe it or not there actually is evil in this world that is n't the fault of governments and that the magical hand of the free and utterly deregulated market can not cure .
I 'm not even going to try to tackle the rest of your libertarian dribble , arguing with you people is like debating science with a creationist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you live someplace where you're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly (more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp) or a very rural residence, then you might get screwed.
Monopoly and oligopoly very rarely come about in small communities solely as a result of some evil government granted monopoly.
You get those sorts of situations even in countries that have free market economies simply because of the small size of many communities which means that the local market which will not support two providers.
This goes for many kinds of service and business in small communities from the local airline to the grocery store.
Believe it or not there actually is evil in this world that isn't the fault of governments and that the magical hand of the free and utterly deregulated market cannot cure.
I'm not even going to try to tackle the rest of your libertarian dribble, arguing with you people is like debating science with a creationist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847387</id>
	<title>when the corepirate nazi illuminati attacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it might be a good time to duck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it might be a good time to duck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it might be a good time to duck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849235</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a troll by Tim B. Lee</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people do.  However, the government uses my money and has no experts, they don't get to make choices in some cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do .
However , the government uses my money and has no experts , they do n't get to make choices in some cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people do.
However, the government uses my money and has no experts, they don't get to make choices in some cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847495</id>
	<title>Re:"Heartland Institute"?</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256320080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The self-described libertarians who oppose free software and other radically egalitarian concepts aren't really libertarians in the sense of Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party.  They're Capitalists or Plutocratics who simply want to be free of external restrictions on their ability to make money.  But in our society's not-terribly-nuanced way of speaking about politics, anybody who is opposed to the State but isn't trying to replace it with the Church, gets labeled "libertarian".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The self-described libertarians who oppose free software and other radically egalitarian concepts are n't really libertarians in the sense of Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party .
They 're Capitalists or Plutocratics who simply want to be free of external restrictions on their ability to make money .
But in our society 's not-terribly-nuanced way of speaking about politics , anybody who is opposed to the State but is n't trying to replace it with the Church , gets labeled " libertarian " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The self-described libertarians who oppose free software and other radically egalitarian concepts aren't really libertarians in the sense of Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party.
They're Capitalists or Plutocratics who simply want to be free of external restrictions on their ability to make money.
But in our society's not-terribly-nuanced way of speaking about politics, anybody who is opposed to the State but isn't trying to replace it with the Church, gets labeled "libertarian".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847837</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Libertarian001</author>
	<datestamp>1256321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to think of myself as being "libertarian," though there are caveats.  I'd rather let the market decide, unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself.  I consider big business using money to change laws to their favor at the expense of private citizens to fall into that category and would hope that government would intervene on behalf of its citizens.  You're right in that I'm more interested in "My freedom" over "Your freedom," (which is natural) but, again, with caveats.  My freedom ends where your nose begins, as they say.  When someone starts spouting off about their "Rights," the first question I ask is, "At who's expense?"  If you require my participation to enable/enforce your "Rights" then it's not a right.  And the reverse is also true.  I don't expect (e.g., sense of entitlement) anything that requires others to act.</p><p>For the topic at hand, these chuckleheads proclaiming themselves to be "libertarians" are way off base.  There's nothing in libertarian ideology that says that all things must be thought of in terms of how much money it'll make the individual.  Why have a problem with someone making software free and open source?  It's their right to do so.  If enough people follow that path and it adversely affects Microsoft's bottom line, then I'd say that Microsoft (just an example) needs to alter its business model to acclimate to the changing times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to think of myself as being " libertarian , " though there are caveats .
I 'd rather let the market decide , unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself .
I consider big business using money to change laws to their favor at the expense of private citizens to fall into that category and would hope that government would intervene on behalf of its citizens .
You 're right in that I 'm more interested in " My freedom " over " Your freedom , " ( which is natural ) but , again , with caveats .
My freedom ends where your nose begins , as they say .
When someone starts spouting off about their " Rights , " the first question I ask is , " At who 's expense ?
" If you require my participation to enable/enforce your " Rights " then it 's not a right .
And the reverse is also true .
I do n't expect ( e.g. , sense of entitlement ) anything that requires others to act.For the topic at hand , these chuckleheads proclaiming themselves to be " libertarians " are way off base .
There 's nothing in libertarian ideology that says that all things must be thought of in terms of how much money it 'll make the individual .
Why have a problem with someone making software free and open source ?
It 's their right to do so .
If enough people follow that path and it adversely affects Microsoft 's bottom line , then I 'd say that Microsoft ( just an example ) needs to alter its business model to acclimate to the changing times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to think of myself as being "libertarian," though there are caveats.
I'd rather let the market decide, unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself.
I consider big business using money to change laws to their favor at the expense of private citizens to fall into that category and would hope that government would intervene on behalf of its citizens.
You're right in that I'm more interested in "My freedom" over "Your freedom," (which is natural) but, again, with caveats.
My freedom ends where your nose begins, as they say.
When someone starts spouting off about their "Rights," the first question I ask is, "At who's expense?
"  If you require my participation to enable/enforce your "Rights" then it's not a right.
And the reverse is also true.
I don't expect (e.g., sense of entitlement) anything that requires others to act.For the topic at hand, these chuckleheads proclaiming themselves to be "libertarians" are way off base.
There's nothing in libertarian ideology that says that all things must be thought of in terms of how much money it'll make the individual.
Why have a problem with someone making software free and open source?
It's their right to do so.
If enough people follow that path and it adversely affects Microsoft's bottom line, then I'd say that Microsoft (just an example) needs to alter its business model to acclimate to the changing times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847939</id>
	<title>These guys aren't libertarian</title>
	<author>twem2</author>
	<datestamp>1256321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not by any consistent or sane definition of the term.</p><p>Like all political labels the term is abused (as is the term free market - most 'free market' advocates don't advocate anything close to it).</p><p>
The most commonly accepted definition of libertarianism is political thought founded upon the Non Aggression Principle - that is, it is immoral to initiate aggression against another.
</p><p>
On those grounds, consistent libertarian thought opposes patents and copyright as arbitrarily enforced by an aggressive state. Free software on the other hand is a great example of decentralised, voluntary organisation - the very essence of any libertarian society.
</p><p>
That's not to say that there could not be software licenses - that's possible, but they'd probably be unenforceable.
</p><p>
For some more consistent libertarians who embrace open source/free software and apply it in their own work, try <a href="http://c4ss.org/" title="c4ss.org">c4ss.org</a> [c4ss.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not by any consistent or sane definition of the term.Like all political labels the term is abused ( as is the term free market - most 'free market ' advocates do n't advocate anything close to it ) .
The most commonly accepted definition of libertarianism is political thought founded upon the Non Aggression Principle - that is , it is immoral to initiate aggression against another .
On those grounds , consistent libertarian thought opposes patents and copyright as arbitrarily enforced by an aggressive state .
Free software on the other hand is a great example of decentralised , voluntary organisation - the very essence of any libertarian society .
That 's not to say that there could not be software licenses - that 's possible , but they 'd probably be unenforceable .
For some more consistent libertarians who embrace open source/free software and apply it in their own work , try c4ss.org [ c4ss.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not by any consistent or sane definition of the term.Like all political labels the term is abused (as is the term free market - most 'free market' advocates don't advocate anything close to it).
The most commonly accepted definition of libertarianism is political thought founded upon the Non Aggression Principle - that is, it is immoral to initiate aggression against another.
On those grounds, consistent libertarian thought opposes patents and copyright as arbitrarily enforced by an aggressive state.
Free software on the other hand is a great example of decentralised, voluntary organisation - the very essence of any libertarian society.
That's not to say that there could not be software licenses - that's possible, but they'd probably be unenforceable.
For some more consistent libertarians who embrace open source/free software and apply it in their own work, try c4ss.org [c4ss.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849583</id>
	<title>Big Difference</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1256327520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free Software - individuals freely choosing to give up traditional royalty-based copyrights.  Libertarian-OK.</p><p>Government Mandate of Free Software for Government - a cost/benefit decision for taxpayers  Libertarian-maybe-OK.</p><p>Net Neutrality - government mandating contract terms between ISPs and users, and possibly a slippery scope for greater Internet regulation.  Libertarian-not-OK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free Software - individuals freely choosing to give up traditional royalty-based copyrights .
Libertarian-OK.Government Mandate of Free Software for Government - a cost/benefit decision for taxpayers Libertarian-maybe-OK.Net Neutrality - government mandating contract terms between ISPs and users , and possibly a slippery scope for greater Internet regulation .
Libertarian-not-OK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free Software - individuals freely choosing to give up traditional royalty-based copyrights.
Libertarian-OK.Government Mandate of Free Software for Government - a cost/benefit decision for taxpayers  Libertarian-maybe-OK.Net Neutrality - government mandating contract terms between ISPs and users, and possibly a slippery scope for greater Internet regulation.
Libertarian-not-OK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851567</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous Meoward</author>
	<datestamp>1256291880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you. Nice to know I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of anti-gummint types, spewing about how their freedoms are at risk, on <i>a system of computer networks that were designed and implemented with government funding</i>.

</p><p>Maybe next week, we can debate the dangers of distraction while driving on cell phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
Nice to know I 'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of anti-gummint types , spewing about how their freedoms are at risk , on a system of computer networks that were designed and implemented with government funding .
Maybe next week , we can debate the dangers of distraction while driving on cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
Nice to know I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of anti-gummint types, spewing about how their freedoms are at risk, on a system of computer networks that were designed and implemented with government funding.
Maybe next week, we can debate the dangers of distraction while driving on cell phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848033</id>
	<title>Phase 1 of the Propaganda</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1256322060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many posts have mentioned, the argument has little to do with the scholarly sense of the work Libertarian.</p><p>The battle is on assuming any rules are created supporting the broadest sense of the phrase Network Neutrality.</p><p>The content by the Heartland Institute is used as propaganda that parties with a vested interest in market-driven network access. Telcos and media conglomerates are only two such interested parties.  Crap like this will be used to justify privatizing the whole thing.</p><p>Finally, some subtler ideas that may be of interest to some.</p><p>1. When there is no economic motive, market mechanisms do not apply.  It is not economic activity.  So, any interested parties that abhor the absence of economic motives will react with irrational hostility. (ex. Heartland Institute)<br>2. People focused on maintaining a social hierarchy want to maintain or improve their social standing by using non-neutral network access as a status symbol.  A vaguely related American example would be these people typically will consume iPhone-everything simply because it's one of the most expensive ways to communicate wirelessly not because they use all of the features.  They typically react with indifference or hostility to things that provide no external affirmation of their social status.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many posts have mentioned , the argument has little to do with the scholarly sense of the work Libertarian.The battle is on assuming any rules are created supporting the broadest sense of the phrase Network Neutrality.The content by the Heartland Institute is used as propaganda that parties with a vested interest in market-driven network access .
Telcos and media conglomerates are only two such interested parties .
Crap like this will be used to justify privatizing the whole thing.Finally , some subtler ideas that may be of interest to some.1 .
When there is no economic motive , market mechanisms do not apply .
It is not economic activity .
So , any interested parties that abhor the absence of economic motives will react with irrational hostility .
( ex. Heartland Institute ) 2 .
People focused on maintaining a social hierarchy want to maintain or improve their social standing by using non-neutral network access as a status symbol .
A vaguely related American example would be these people typically will consume iPhone-everything simply because it 's one of the most expensive ways to communicate wirelessly not because they use all of the features .
They typically react with indifference or hostility to things that provide no external affirmation of their social status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many posts have mentioned, the argument has little to do with the scholarly sense of the work Libertarian.The battle is on assuming any rules are created supporting the broadest sense of the phrase Network Neutrality.The content by the Heartland Institute is used as propaganda that parties with a vested interest in market-driven network access.
Telcos and media conglomerates are only two such interested parties.
Crap like this will be used to justify privatizing the whole thing.Finally, some subtler ideas that may be of interest to some.1.
When there is no economic motive, market mechanisms do not apply.
It is not economic activity.
So, any interested parties that abhor the absence of economic motives will react with irrational hostility.
(ex. Heartland Institute)2.
People focused on maintaining a social hierarchy want to maintain or improve their social standing by using non-neutral network access as a status symbol.
A vaguely related American example would be these people typically will consume iPhone-everything simply because it's one of the most expensive ways to communicate wirelessly not because they use all of the features.
They typically react with indifference or hostility to things that provide no external affirmation of their social status.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847789</id>
	<title>Re:An old Ronald Reagan quote is still true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't know of a GUT for physics yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't know of a GUT for physics yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't know of a GUT for physics yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851385</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>ThreeE</author>
	<datestamp>1256291220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utter bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848329</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>TheGreatOrangePeel</author>
	<datestamp>1256322960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Out of curiosity, where would "<i> <b>Our</b> </i> freedom" fall under?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , where would " Our freedom " fall under ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, where would " Our  freedom" fall under?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707</id>
	<title>Quite a troll by Tim B. Lee</title>
	<author>daemonenwind</author>
	<datestamp>1256320920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look under the covers, every article quoted by the blog post presented talk about linux in terms of POLICY DECISIONS by GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.</p><p>When Munich went Linux, it made some open source folks realize that, if Linux had a hard road getting adoption by the likes of Dell and HP, then they could go the Apple route and be a government mandate (think schools)</p><p>And so people began lobbying to get laws passed mandating the use of open-source tools by various government bodies.</p><p>For example, in one of the articles (Open Source Socialism by Sonia Arrison) Lee quotes:</p><blockquote><div><p> But the pressing question is not whether open source can make its creators money, or its purported advantages over proprietary software. The current issue is whether government should be used to force an increase in open source deployment. A good deal of the frenzy is a reaction to the success of Microsoft.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....(my snip)....</p><p>Microsoft has market power because it creates products that satisfy technology needs at the right price. If the open source community's products better satisfy those needs at a better price, then it shouldn't be necessary to legislate the use of open source in government departments, as some California activists suggested in August. It also shouldn't be necessary to legislate smaller items like the exact parts of a state's information technology (IT) infrastructure that must remain open, as Perens wants to do.</p><p>If a government agency chooses to use an open or mixed system for efficiency and cost reasons, that is fine. But forcing the taxpayer's IT budget to favor one type of system over another for purely political reasons is wrong and antithetical to the spirit of the open source community.</p></div>  </blockquote><p>This is the primary concern of the libertarians - that choice is not mandated by legislative fiat.  We should let the experts employed by the states decide what they'll run.</p><p>I expect most folks reading Slashdot would feel the same way, in their own job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look under the covers , every article quoted by the blog post presented talk about linux in terms of POLICY DECISIONS by GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.When Munich went Linux , it made some open source folks realize that , if Linux had a hard road getting adoption by the likes of Dell and HP , then they could go the Apple route and be a government mandate ( think schools ) And so people began lobbying to get laws passed mandating the use of open-source tools by various government bodies.For example , in one of the articles ( Open Source Socialism by Sonia Arrison ) Lee quotes : But the pressing question is not whether open source can make its creators money , or its purported advantages over proprietary software .
The current issue is whether government should be used to force an increase in open source deployment .
A good deal of the frenzy is a reaction to the success of Microsoft .
.... ( my snip ) ....Microsoft has market power because it creates products that satisfy technology needs at the right price .
If the open source community 's products better satisfy those needs at a better price , then it should n't be necessary to legislate the use of open source in government departments , as some California activists suggested in August .
It also should n't be necessary to legislate smaller items like the exact parts of a state 's information technology ( IT ) infrastructure that must remain open , as Perens wants to do.If a government agency chooses to use an open or mixed system for efficiency and cost reasons , that is fine .
But forcing the taxpayer 's IT budget to favor one type of system over another for purely political reasons is wrong and antithetical to the spirit of the open source community .
This is the primary concern of the libertarians - that choice is not mandated by legislative fiat .
We should let the experts employed by the states decide what they 'll run.I expect most folks reading Slashdot would feel the same way , in their own job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look under the covers, every article quoted by the blog post presented talk about linux in terms of POLICY DECISIONS by GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.When Munich went Linux, it made some open source folks realize that, if Linux had a hard road getting adoption by the likes of Dell and HP, then they could go the Apple route and be a government mandate (think schools)And so people began lobbying to get laws passed mandating the use of open-source tools by various government bodies.For example, in one of the articles (Open Source Socialism by Sonia Arrison) Lee quotes: But the pressing question is not whether open source can make its creators money, or its purported advantages over proprietary software.
The current issue is whether government should be used to force an increase in open source deployment.
A good deal of the frenzy is a reaction to the success of Microsoft.
....(my snip)....Microsoft has market power because it creates products that satisfy technology needs at the right price.
If the open source community's products better satisfy those needs at a better price, then it shouldn't be necessary to legislate the use of open source in government departments, as some California activists suggested in August.
It also shouldn't be necessary to legislate smaller items like the exact parts of a state's information technology (IT) infrastructure that must remain open, as Perens wants to do.If a government agency chooses to use an open or mixed system for efficiency and cost reasons, that is fine.
But forcing the taxpayer's IT budget to favor one type of system over another for purely political reasons is wrong and antithetical to the spirit of the open source community.
This is the primary concern of the libertarians - that choice is not mandated by legislative fiat.
We should let the experts employed by the states decide what they'll run.I expect most folks reading Slashdot would feel the same way, in their own job.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847459</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libertarians generally want government force behind contracts, in order to make it practical to do business. I certainly can't speak for them, but I would think at least some libertarians like government enforced copyright laws because they are a simple and inexpensive way to get the types of contracts that differentiate their ideas from anarchy. Instant copyright like we have now but with a seriously limited time period (like a year) would probably be the the most in keeping with pure non-anarchy libertarian ideas.</p><p>Also the BSD crowd make a pretty persuasave argument that there would be plenty of free software without GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians generally want government force behind contracts , in order to make it practical to do business .
I certainly ca n't speak for them , but I would think at least some libertarians like government enforced copyright laws because they are a simple and inexpensive way to get the types of contracts that differentiate their ideas from anarchy .
Instant copyright like we have now but with a seriously limited time period ( like a year ) would probably be the the most in keeping with pure non-anarchy libertarian ideas.Also the BSD crowd make a pretty persuasave argument that there would be plenty of free software without GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians generally want government force behind contracts, in order to make it practical to do business.
I certainly can't speak for them, but I would think at least some libertarians like government enforced copyright laws because they are a simple and inexpensive way to get the types of contracts that differentiate their ideas from anarchy.
Instant copyright like we have now but with a seriously limited time period (like a year) would probably be the the most in keeping with pure non-anarchy libertarian ideas.Also the BSD crowd make a pretty persuasave argument that there would be plenty of free software without GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</id>
	<title>who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Liberarians tend to focus on "my freedom" more than on "your freedom".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Liberarians tend to focus on " my freedom " more than on " your freedom " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberarians tend to focus on "my freedom" more than on "your freedom".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850599</id>
	<title>Re:Quite a troll by Tim B. Lee</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1256331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always thought that advocating for FOSS in government systems isn't so much about perceived price and/or need satisfaction, but more about the notion that citizens should be able to audit the way their government works, and that includes any software that said government uses - which definitely makes a lot of sense in some areas (e-voting is an obvious one, but also things like e.g. traffic cameras software), and probably less so in others (do you really need the source to the text processor that a government clerk is using to type documents, so long as the output format is sufficiently well-documented to prevent lock-in?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought that advocating for FOSS in government systems is n't so much about perceived price and/or need satisfaction , but more about the notion that citizens should be able to audit the way their government works , and that includes any software that said government uses - which definitely makes a lot of sense in some areas ( e-voting is an obvious one , but also things like e.g .
traffic cameras software ) , and probably less so in others ( do you really need the source to the text processor that a government clerk is using to type documents , so long as the output format is sufficiently well-documented to prevent lock-in ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought that advocating for FOSS in government systems isn't so much about perceived price and/or need satisfaction, but more about the notion that citizens should be able to audit the way their government works, and that includes any software that said government uses - which definitely makes a lot of sense in some areas (e-voting is an obvious one, but also things like e.g.
traffic cameras software), and probably less so in others (do you really need the source to the text processor that a government clerk is using to type documents, so long as the output format is sufficiently well-documented to prevent lock-in?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852607</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1256298420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Libertarians oppose "net neutrality" because there's nothing neutral about it. It's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others. If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them. Do you think people will be more loyal to Commcast and stop using Google, or more loyal to Google and ditch Commcast? If you live someplace where you're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly (more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp) or a very rural residence, then you might get screwed. But as technology advances (and regulations disappear), we'll have dozens of choices for net access, and the marketplace will act to reduce prices, as it does in all other fields.</p> </div><p>How, in the absence of government interference will any company provide service? They would have to separately negotiate right of way with practically every property owner in order to get the lines run. What if I decide I just don't want any poles in my yard and don't want wires overhead? Further I don't want a trench dug in my yard. What if my neighbors feel the same way? Will the people down the street end up back in the mid-19th century or should government interfere in my freedom?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians oppose " net neutrality " because there 's nothing neutral about it .
It 's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others .
If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google , let them .
Do you think people will be more loyal to Commcast and stop using Google , or more loyal to Google and ditch Commcast ?
If you live someplace where you 're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly ( more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp ) or a very rural residence , then you might get screwed .
But as technology advances ( and regulations disappear ) , we 'll have dozens of choices for net access , and the marketplace will act to reduce prices , as it does in all other fields .
How , in the absence of government interference will any company provide service ?
They would have to separately negotiate right of way with practically every property owner in order to get the lines run .
What if I decide I just do n't want any poles in my yard and do n't want wires overhead ?
Further I do n't want a trench dug in my yard .
What if my neighbors feel the same way ?
Will the people down the street end up back in the mid-19th century or should government interfere in my freedom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians oppose "net neutrality" because there's nothing neutral about it.
It's some group forcing what it thinks is right onto others.
If Commcast wants to start charging you more every time you request a page from Google, let them.
Do you think people will be more loyal to Commcast and stop using Google, or more loyal to Google and ditch Commcast?
If you live someplace where you're stuck with a single cable company or phone company due to a government granted monopoly (more regulation screwing the customers for the benefit of a corp) or a very rural residence, then you might get screwed.
But as technology advances (and regulations disappear), we'll have dozens of choices for net access, and the marketplace will act to reduce prices, as it does in all other fields.
How, in the absence of government interference will any company provide service?
They would have to separately negotiate right of way with practically every property owner in order to get the lines run.
What if I decide I just don't want any poles in my yard and don't want wires overhead?
Further I don't want a trench dug in my yard.
What if my neighbors feel the same way?
Will the people down the street end up back in the mid-19th century or should government interfere in my freedom?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847221</id>
	<title>e=mc profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>free market organizations attacking free software is because free market organizations are actually free profit orgs.  They cry wolf all the time unless there is something in it for them.  They see free software as taking profits away from other "free market" organizations without realizing free software would increase profits and decrease operational costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>free market organizations attacking free software is because free market organizations are actually free profit orgs .
They cry wolf all the time unless there is something in it for them .
They see free software as taking profits away from other " free market " organizations without realizing free software would increase profits and decrease operational costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free market organizations attacking free software is because free market organizations are actually free profit orgs.
They cry wolf all the time unless there is something in it for them.
They see free software as taking profits away from other "free market" organizations without realizing free software would increase profits and decrease operational costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847521</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians calling others a 'radical agenda'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, for a want of mod points... but yes, that's what no interference by a governing body means. Extra props for making me laugh with that insight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , for a want of mod points... but yes , that 's what no interference by a governing body means .
Extra props for making me laugh with that insight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, for a want of mod points... but yes, that's what no interference by a governing body means.
Extra props for making me laugh with that insight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852501</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256297760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;First of all, the more powerful governments are, the more powerful regulation is which *limits* the power and size of corporate power</p><p>First of all, corporations only exist because government created them.<br>Governments could kill every corporation overnight,<br>simply by revoking their incorporation licenses.</p><p>So the previous person's comment: "Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps," is right on target.  It's a circle - wealthy men bribed government leaders to give them limited liability (incorporation).  The leaders granted it.  Wealthy men bribed government leaders to give them special privileges.  The leaders granted it.  Wealthy men begged government leaders to bail them out.  So government gave them 700 billion.</p><p>If the government leaders had simply said "No," right from the very start and maintained a small government of minimal size, the corporations would never have been born.  Companies would be one-owner affairs.</p><p>Big, overreaching government gave birth to the evil of the corporation, with a simple piece of paper called an "incorporation license".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; First of all , the more powerful governments are , the more powerful regulation is which * limits * the power and size of corporate powerFirst of all , corporations only exist because government created them.Governments could kill every corporation overnight,simply by revoking their incorporation licenses.So the previous person 's comment : " Big , bloated , inefficient government leads to big , bloated , inefficient corps , " is right on target .
It 's a circle - wealthy men bribed government leaders to give them limited liability ( incorporation ) .
The leaders granted it .
Wealthy men bribed government leaders to give them special privileges .
The leaders granted it .
Wealthy men begged government leaders to bail them out .
So government gave them 700 billion.If the government leaders had simply said " No , " right from the very start and maintained a small government of minimal size , the corporations would never have been born .
Companies would be one-owner affairs.Big , overreaching government gave birth to the evil of the corporation , with a simple piece of paper called an " incorporation license " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;First of all, the more powerful governments are, the more powerful regulation is which *limits* the power and size of corporate powerFirst of all, corporations only exist because government created them.Governments could kill every corporation overnight,simply by revoking their incorporation licenses.So the previous person's comment: "Big, bloated, inefficient government leads to big, bloated, inefficient corps," is right on target.
It's a circle - wealthy men bribed government leaders to give them limited liability (incorporation).
The leaders granted it.
Wealthy men bribed government leaders to give them special privileges.
The leaders granted it.
Wealthy men begged government leaders to bail them out.
So government gave them 700 billion.If the government leaders had simply said "No," right from the very start and maintained a small government of minimal size, the corporations would never have been born.
Companies would be one-owner affairs.Big, overreaching government gave birth to the evil of the corporation, with a simple piece of paper called an "incorporation license".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847259</id>
	<title>These are not libertarians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note to editor: There are not libertarians.</p><p>Many libertarians hate IP and consider it a limit on human exchange. Seeing how they are free marketers, they see any exchange as better off without government controls, whether it be taxes, regulation, or IP law like patents or copyrights. Stephan Kinsella has written a great deal about this, as have Michele Boldrin and David Levine. If any libertarian is pro IP (these people are becoming more and more rare) then there are likely to be in favor of reducing copyright length and opening of the patent system open and reforming it to make it less prone to the current game of "gotcha, now I'm gonna sue" idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note to editor : There are not libertarians.Many libertarians hate IP and consider it a limit on human exchange .
Seeing how they are free marketers , they see any exchange as better off without government controls , whether it be taxes , regulation , or IP law like patents or copyrights .
Stephan Kinsella has written a great deal about this , as have Michele Boldrin and David Levine .
If any libertarian is pro IP ( these people are becoming more and more rare ) then there are likely to be in favor of reducing copyright length and opening of the patent system open and reforming it to make it less prone to the current game of " gotcha , now I 'm gon na sue " idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note to editor: There are not libertarians.Many libertarians hate IP and consider it a limit on human exchange.
Seeing how they are free marketers, they see any exchange as better off without government controls, whether it be taxes, regulation, or IP law like patents or copyrights.
Stephan Kinsella has written a great deal about this, as have Michele Boldrin and David Levine.
If any libertarian is pro IP (these people are becoming more and more rare) then there are likely to be in favor of reducing copyright length and opening of the patent system open and reforming it to make it less prone to the current game of "gotcha, now I'm gonna sue" idiocy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849377</id>
	<title>Re:Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1256326740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased.</p></div><p>That statement is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. That network was built with government help. It's funny to me that these companies are willing to use anti-libertarian things like eminent domain and then hide behind libertarian principles when it suits them. The minute they use eminent domain their networks cease to be private.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased.That statement is true , but does n't tell the whole story .
That network was built with government help .
It 's funny to me that these companies are willing to use anti-libertarian things like eminent domain and then hide behind libertarian principles when it suits them .
The minute they use eminent domain their networks cease to be private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which is privately owned and leased.That statement is true, but doesn't tell the whole story.
That network was built with government help.
It's funny to me that these companies are willing to use anti-libertarian things like eminent domain and then hide behind libertarian principles when it suits them.
The minute they use eminent domain their networks cease to be private.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847245</id>
	<title>Re:"Heartland Institute"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure but a libertarian would be opposed to open source software's free concept as it's anti capitalism.  The original poster over simplification is why they don't get it.  It also show there arrogance and ignorance.  Free as in no monetary value is not a libertarian principal it's a socialist/communist point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure but a libertarian would be opposed to open source software 's free concept as it 's anti capitalism .
The original poster over simplification is why they do n't get it .
It also show there arrogance and ignorance .
Free as in no monetary value is not a libertarian principal it 's a socialist/communist point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure but a libertarian would be opposed to open source software's free concept as it's anti capitalism.
The original poster over simplification is why they don't get it.
It also show there arrogance and ignorance.
Free as in no monetary value is not a libertarian principal it's a socialist/communist point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29860353</id>
	<title>Re:Net neutrality is NOT FOSS!</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1256383860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction: Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which has been subsidized by the taxpayers and granted limited monopoly/oligopoly status to one or more privately owned companies by said government.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction : Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which has been subsidized by the taxpayers and granted limited monopoly/oligopoly status to one or more privately owned companies by said government. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction: Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which has been subsidized by the taxpayers and granted limited monopoly/oligopoly status to one or more privately owned companies by said government.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848633</id>
	<title>Re:Libertarians assume government the only evil</title>
	<author>sadler121</author>
	<datestamp>1256324160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A monopoly can not exist with out the government getting involved. "IP" or Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks, etc are a form of a (supposed) limited grant of monopoly power over a particular idea. If we equate less government with getting rid of "IP", then there would be no monopolies because Corporations wouldn't have the Government around to act as their police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A monopoly can not exist with out the government getting involved .
" IP " or Copyrights , Patents , Trademarks , etc are a form of a ( supposed ) limited grant of monopoly power over a particular idea .
If we equate less government with getting rid of " IP " , then there would be no monopolies because Corporations would n't have the Government around to act as their police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A monopoly can not exist with out the government getting involved.
"IP" or Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks, etc are a form of a (supposed) limited grant of monopoly power over a particular idea.
If we equate less government with getting rid of "IP", then there would be no monopolies because Corporations wouldn't have the Government around to act as their police.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848407</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>slysithesuperspy</author>
	<datestamp>1256323320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what's the answer?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
<br>
A few thoughts on the matter:
 Weren't telephones around the world linked up privately? If they were subsidized, how much?<br>
<br>
Also a global internet is going to be more profitable than closed networks, wasn't AOL a closed network at one point? And I think I've heard of other ones that completely failed.<br>
<br>
To be quite frank, I really don't care about mind games about how stuff might have happened, or how stuff might happen in an alternate universe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D Especially if something like the internet is a logical conclusion of having computers that connect to each other.<br>
<br>

(Btw, when people say big-L Libertarians, they 99\% of the time mean people from the Libertarian party. Though, I have seen even people like Jesse Ventura think that means anarcho-libertarian, or anarcho-captalist.)

<br>
<br>
So yea yea you won't take me seriously (which accounts for the tone of my comment) but no one can prove either way if the internet would exist if there just so happened to be some libertarian society so I would advocate voluntarism rather than coercion (anyone can test out for themselves if something is coercive or not, e.g. trying to not pay taxes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the answer ?
: ) A few thoughts on the matter : Were n't telephones around the world linked up privately ?
If they were subsidized , how much ?
Also a global internet is going to be more profitable than closed networks , was n't AOL a closed network at one point ?
And I think I 've heard of other ones that completely failed .
To be quite frank , I really do n't care about mind games about how stuff might have happened , or how stuff might happen in an alternate universe : D Especially if something like the internet is a logical conclusion of having computers that connect to each other .
( Btw , when people say big-L Libertarians , they 99 \ % of the time mean people from the Libertarian party .
Though , I have seen even people like Jesse Ventura think that means anarcho-libertarian , or anarcho-captalist .
) So yea yea you wo n't take me seriously ( which accounts for the tone of my comment ) but no one can prove either way if the internet would exist if there just so happened to be some libertarian society so I would advocate voluntarism rather than coercion ( anyone can test out for themselves if something is coercive or not , e.g .
trying to not pay taxes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's the answer?
:)

A few thoughts on the matter:
 Weren't telephones around the world linked up privately?
If they were subsidized, how much?
Also a global internet is going to be more profitable than closed networks, wasn't AOL a closed network at one point?
And I think I've heard of other ones that completely failed.
To be quite frank, I really don't care about mind games about how stuff might have happened, or how stuff might happen in an alternate universe :D Especially if something like the internet is a logical conclusion of having computers that connect to each other.
(Btw, when people say big-L Libertarians, they 99\% of the time mean people from the Libertarian party.
Though, I have seen even people like Jesse Ventura think that means anarcho-libertarian, or anarcho-captalist.
)



So yea yea you won't take me seriously (which accounts for the tone of my comment) but no one can prove either way if the internet would exist if there just so happened to be some libertarian society so I would advocate voluntarism rather than coercion (anyone can test out for themselves if something is coercive or not, e.g.
trying to not pay taxes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847957</id>
	<title>I don't think he is attacking free software</title>
	<author>fortapocalypse</author>
	<datestamp>1256321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He is attacking the belief by some that in a perfect world all software should be free. The fact is that while there should be freedom to provide and use free software, and there should also be freedom to make profit by selling software. Anything that encroaches on either freedom is against Libertarian principles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is attacking the belief by some that in a perfect world all software should be free .
The fact is that while there should be freedom to provide and use free software , and there should also be freedom to make profit by selling software .
Anything that encroaches on either freedom is against Libertarian principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is attacking the belief by some that in a perfect world all software should be free.
The fact is that while there should be freedom to provide and use free software, and there should also be freedom to make profit by selling software.
Anything that encroaches on either freedom is against Libertarian principles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848737</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fahrvegnugen, you must be young?  There were many huge networks before the Internet.  Don't you remember all the X.25 networks?  Apparently not?   In the early days of online services when you dialed a local number to get into the online service, what do you think you were calling?   Did you find it strange the AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and Delphi often had the same dial up numbers?</p><p>Maybe you should read some Wikipedia pages:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenet<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tymnet</p><p>That was a couple of the big ones in the US.  There were many others all over the world, and some of them were very international.   And, if you read the history of them, most of them were started as PRIVATE BUSINESSES.   They weren't by the government.</p><p>The market would have, and did, provide these things, and would have continued to evolve it's offerings.  Those networks were already available all over the country and tons of businesses, government institutions, and schools were on them.    All from the market, not the government.</p><p>Now, stop complaining about such nonsense and go and become a libertarian!</p><p>(Also, if your next question is regarding all the great things NASA gave us, I suggest you do research.  It is a popular question, but the when you search around you find that tons of the great inventions of NASA really were invented outside of NASA and already available in the private market place.   They may have had a role in popularizing the usage, but the technologies and products were almost all available in some form already in the marketplace.   Go and study some Austrian economics, maybe read "Economics in One Lesson," and then decide not what NASA gave us, but how much it cost us and took away from the market.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fahrvegnugen , you must be young ?
There were many huge networks before the Internet .
Do n't you remember all the X.25 networks ?
Apparently not ?
In the early days of online services when you dialed a local number to get into the online service , what do you think you were calling ?
Did you find it strange the AOL , Compuserve , Prodigy and Delphi often had the same dial up numbers ? Maybe you should read some Wikipedia pages : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenethttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TymnetThat was a couple of the big ones in the US .
There were many others all over the world , and some of them were very international .
And , if you read the history of them , most of them were started as PRIVATE BUSINESSES .
They were n't by the government.The market would have , and did , provide these things , and would have continued to evolve it 's offerings .
Those networks were already available all over the country and tons of businesses , government institutions , and schools were on them .
All from the market , not the government.Now , stop complaining about such nonsense and go and become a libertarian !
( Also , if your next question is regarding all the great things NASA gave us , I suggest you do research .
It is a popular question , but the when you search around you find that tons of the great inventions of NASA really were invented outside of NASA and already available in the private market place .
They may have had a role in popularizing the usage , but the technologies and products were almost all available in some form already in the marketplace .
Go and study some Austrian economics , maybe read " Economics in One Lesson , " and then decide not what NASA gave us , but how much it cost us and took away from the market .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fahrvegnugen, you must be young?
There were many huge networks before the Internet.
Don't you remember all the X.25 networks?
Apparently not?
In the early days of online services when you dialed a local number to get into the online service, what do you think you were calling?
Did you find it strange the AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and Delphi often had the same dial up numbers?Maybe you should read some Wikipedia pages:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TymnetThat was a couple of the big ones in the US.
There were many others all over the world, and some of them were very international.
And, if you read the history of them, most of them were started as PRIVATE BUSINESSES.
They weren't by the government.The market would have, and did, provide these things, and would have continued to evolve it's offerings.
Those networks were already available all over the country and tons of businesses, government institutions, and schools were on them.
All from the market, not the government.Now, stop complaining about such nonsense and go and become a libertarian!
(Also, if your next question is regarding all the great things NASA gave us, I suggest you do research.
It is a popular question, but the when you search around you find that tons of the great inventions of NASA really were invented outside of NASA and already available in the private market place.
They may have had a role in popularizing the usage, but the technologies and products were almost all available in some form already in the marketplace.
Go and study some Austrian economics, maybe read "Economics in One Lesson," and then decide not what NASA gave us, but how much it cost us and took away from the market.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847531</id>
	<title>Motivation</title>
	<author>raybob</author>
	<datestamp>1256320200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Individuals still act out of self-interest even when contributing their time &amp; energies to FOSS.  The payoff can be ego gratification, skill enhancement, position in the community, etc.  In other words, self interest doesn't have to mean capitalistic self-interest only.</p><p>Developing talent/skill is in furtherance of capitalism:</p><p>"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason." -- Ayn Rand, from "Atlas shrugged"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Individuals still act out of self-interest even when contributing their time &amp; energies to FOSS .
The payoff can be ego gratification , skill enhancement , position in the community , etc .
In other words , self interest does n't have to mean capitalistic self-interest only.Developing talent/skill is in furtherance of capitalism : " Money demands that you sell , not your weakness to men 's stupidity , but your talent to their reason .
" -- Ayn Rand , from " Atlas shrugged "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Individuals still act out of self-interest even when contributing their time &amp; energies to FOSS.
The payoff can be ego gratification, skill enhancement, position in the community, etc.
In other words, self interest doesn't have to mean capitalistic self-interest only.Developing talent/skill is in furtherance of capitalism:"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason.
" -- Ayn Rand, from "Atlas shrugged"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850261</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1256330220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ugh, again the common mistake of trying to view libertarianism through a moral lens. Libertarianism in general tries to avoid legislating morality, which is why it tries to "grab whatever liberty it can". It should not be up to the government to morally judge what I do. If I want to spend all my money on hookers instead of donating to the Red Cross, that's my damn business. Instead, today, spending money on hookers is criminalized and donating to the Red Cross is incentivized. It's blatant social engineering, and libertarianism is antithetical to such engineering. The foundation of libertarian social theory is that only provable, direct harms should be targets for criminalization, and until people actually harm others, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is the only way a society can be truly free, and not just play lip service to a hyper-regulated distortion of freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , again the common mistake of trying to view libertarianism through a moral lens .
Libertarianism in general tries to avoid legislating morality , which is why it tries to " grab whatever liberty it can " .
It should not be up to the government to morally judge what I do .
If I want to spend all my money on hookers instead of donating to the Red Cross , that 's my damn business .
Instead , today , spending money on hookers is criminalized and donating to the Red Cross is incentivized .
It 's blatant social engineering , and libertarianism is antithetical to such engineering .
The foundation of libertarian social theory is that only provable , direct harms should be targets for criminalization , and until people actually harm others , they should be given the benefit of the doubt .
That is the only way a society can be truly free , and not just play lip service to a hyper-regulated distortion of freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, again the common mistake of trying to view libertarianism through a moral lens.
Libertarianism in general tries to avoid legislating morality, which is why it tries to "grab whatever liberty it can".
It should not be up to the government to morally judge what I do.
If I want to spend all my money on hookers instead of donating to the Red Cross, that's my damn business.
Instead, today, spending money on hookers is criminalized and donating to the Red Cross is incentivized.
It's blatant social engineering, and libertarianism is antithetical to such engineering.
The foundation of libertarian social theory is that only provable, direct harms should be targets for criminalization, and until people actually harm others, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.
That is the only way a society can be truly free, and not just play lip service to a hyper-regulated distortion of freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847693</id>
	<title>As a life-long Libertarian, let me just say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a life-long Libertarian, let me just say we've been shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot ever since running Bob ("I'm not a drug-warrior anymore, really!") Barr for President.</p><p>But I'm not bitter or anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a life-long Libertarian , let me just say we 've been shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot ever since running Bob ( " I 'm not a drug-warrior anymore , really !
" ) Barr for President.But I 'm not bitter or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a life-long Libertarian, let me just say we've been shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot ever since running Bob ("I'm not a drug-warrior anymore, really!
") Barr for President.But I'm not bitter or anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851191</id>
	<title>Re:An old Ronald Reagan quote is still true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256290440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're telling that to the wrong group.  It's the progressives that believe the economy follows a set of rules, and this belief leads them to think that centralized regulations are a good answer.  I'm not an anarcho-libertarian that believes in a free-as-in-unregulated market, but I believe that very little regulation is required--the vast majority of market abuses are already covered by fraud and other criminal statutes.  Putting more regs in place only stifles innovation and, due to the purchasing power of corporate lobbyists, kills small businesses while consolidating and strengthening the large ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're telling that to the wrong group .
It 's the progressives that believe the economy follows a set of rules , and this belief leads them to think that centralized regulations are a good answer .
I 'm not an anarcho-libertarian that believes in a free-as-in-unregulated market , but I believe that very little regulation is required--the vast majority of market abuses are already covered by fraud and other criminal statutes .
Putting more regs in place only stifles innovation and , due to the purchasing power of corporate lobbyists , kills small businesses while consolidating and strengthening the large ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're telling that to the wrong group.
It's the progressives that believe the economy follows a set of rules, and this belief leads them to think that centralized regulations are a good answer.
I'm not an anarcho-libertarian that believes in a free-as-in-unregulated market, but I believe that very little regulation is required--the vast majority of market abuses are already covered by fraud and other criminal statutes.
Putting more regs in place only stifles innovation and, due to the purchasing power of corporate lobbyists, kills small businesses while consolidating and strengthening the large ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852193</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1256295540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This as opposed to the alternating conservative/liberal plutocratic-kletptocratic oligarchies of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselves.<br> <br>

Read Atlas Shrugged, and by the end you will understand libertarianism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This as opposed to the alternating conservative/liberal plutocratic-kletptocratic oligarchies of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselves .
Read Atlas Shrugged , and by the end you will understand libertarianism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This as opposed to the alternating conservative/liberal plutocratic-kletptocratic oligarchies of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselves.
Read Atlas Shrugged, and by the end you will understand libertarianism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854845</id>
	<title>Feh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256416440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't associate myself with specific labels (such as 'Libertarian', or 'Democrat' or 'Republican') But I think my general positions are compatible with Libertarianism - I oppose big government and tax&amp;spend 'redistribution' of wealth. I oppose the government shoving specific religious views in front of peoples' eyeballs.</p><p>I also support Free Software.</p><p>I would think Libertarians would *demand* Free Software, but maybe they only want freedom from the government, and are quite happy to trade it away to corporate monopolies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't associate myself with specific labels ( such as 'Libertarian ' , or 'Democrat ' or 'Republican ' ) But I think my general positions are compatible with Libertarianism - I oppose big government and tax&amp;spend 'redistribution ' of wealth .
I oppose the government shoving specific religious views in front of peoples ' eyeballs.I also support Free Software.I would think Libertarians would * demand * Free Software , but maybe they only want freedom from the government , and are quite happy to trade it away to corporate monopolies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't associate myself with specific labels (such as 'Libertarian', or 'Democrat' or 'Republican') But I think my general positions are compatible with Libertarianism - I oppose big government and tax&amp;spend 'redistribution' of wealth.
I oppose the government shoving specific religious views in front of peoples' eyeballs.I also support Free Software.I would think Libertarians would *demand* Free Software, but maybe they only want freedom from the government, and are quite happy to trade it away to corporate monopolies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852367</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256296680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Revoke the Comcast monopoly, such that other competitors like Time-Warner, Cox, Cablevision, Verizon, et cetera can lay fiber optics in parallel to Comcast's already-existing lines.</p><p>Then you will have a choice.  If one company becomes greedy &amp; charged you for google.com access you can switch to another company that doesn't charge, just the same way you can jump from sucky Ford to Dodge to Honda to Toyota to Kia to..... until you find the company you like.</p><p>Choice == Power for the citizen.<br>Government == being treated like a child - no power.<br>That's the libertarian viewpoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Revoke the Comcast monopoly , such that other competitors like Time-Warner , Cox , Cablevision , Verizon , et cetera can lay fiber optics in parallel to Comcast 's already-existing lines.Then you will have a choice .
If one company becomes greedy &amp; charged you for google.com access you can switch to another company that does n't charge , just the same way you can jump from sucky Ford to Dodge to Honda to Toyota to Kia to..... until you find the company you like.Choice = = Power for the citizen.Government = = being treated like a child - no power.That 's the libertarian viewpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revoke the Comcast monopoly, such that other competitors like Time-Warner, Cox, Cablevision, Verizon, et cetera can lay fiber optics in parallel to Comcast's already-existing lines.Then you will have a choice.
If one company becomes greedy &amp; charged you for google.com access you can switch to another company that doesn't charge, just the same way you can jump from sucky Ford to Dodge to Honda to Toyota to Kia to..... until you find the company you like.Choice == Power for the citizen.Government == being treated like a child - no power.That's the libertarian viewpoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848473</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1256323560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read and understand your own post?</p><p>Selfish means acting in your own self interest. How is "put any chemical or object in their body they want" a description of self interest?</p><p>Vice is a personal matter as long as it does not harm others, and if it doesn't harm others it's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DAMN BUSINESS. To "sell your kid crack" does not fall into the category of not harming others: a child is not an adult, he is his parents' responsibility and in some respects it is as if he were their property. Selling crack to someone's child causes damage to a legally irresponsible party (like poisoning your neighbor's dog, only much worse), and in so doing harms the responsible party, the parents, who must pay for the physical damage to their child and pay for any harm their child does while "under the influence."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read and understand your own post ? Selfish means acting in your own self interest .
How is " put any chemical or object in their body they want " a description of self interest ? Vice is a personal matter as long as it does not harm others , and if it does n't harm others it 's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT 'S DAMN BUSINESS .
To " sell your kid crack " does not fall into the category of not harming others : a child is not an adult , he is his parents ' responsibility and in some respects it is as if he were their property .
Selling crack to someone 's child causes damage to a legally irresponsible party ( like poisoning your neighbor 's dog , only much worse ) , and in so doing harms the responsible party , the parents , who must pay for the physical damage to their child and pay for any harm their child does while " under the influence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read and understand your own post?Selfish means acting in your own self interest.
How is "put any chemical or object in their body they want" a description of self interest?Vice is a personal matter as long as it does not harm others, and if it doesn't harm others it's NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DAMN BUSINESS.
To "sell your kid crack" does not fall into the category of not harming others: a child is not an adult, he is his parents' responsibility and in some respects it is as if he were their property.
Selling crack to someone's child causes damage to a legally irresponsible party (like poisoning your neighbor's dog, only much worse), and in so doing harms the responsible party, the parents, who must pay for the physical damage to their child and pay for any harm their child does while "under the influence.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847355</id>
	<title>Be forced to be free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The doubt that I always had is:

It is good to force you to be free? (GNU GPL)?
or is it better to have the freedom to decide to be free or not ?(FreeBSD)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The doubt that I always had is : It is good to force you to be free ?
( GNU GPL ) ?
or is it better to have the freedom to decide to be free or not ?
( FreeBSD ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The doubt that I always had is:

It is good to force you to be free?
(GNU GPL)?
or is it better to have the freedom to decide to be free or not ?
(FreeBSD)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850547</id>
	<title>Re:Hear, hear!</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1256331240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ayn Rand notoriously hated libertarians because she too made the common mistake of viewing libertarianism as a philosophy of life instead of a political system (which doesn't work because libertarianism does not believe in legislating morality, which when expanded from a purely political application to a system of living, appears amoral).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ayn Rand notoriously hated libertarians because she too made the common mistake of viewing libertarianism as a philosophy of life instead of a political system ( which does n't work because libertarianism does not believe in legislating morality , which when expanded from a purely political application to a system of living , appears amoral ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ayn Rand notoriously hated libertarians because she too made the common mistake of viewing libertarianism as a philosophy of life instead of a political system (which doesn't work because libertarianism does not believe in legislating morality, which when expanded from a purely political application to a system of living, appears amoral).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852377</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256296740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We follow the philosophy of people like von Mises or Murray Rothbard: every individual has a right to his life, liberty, and everything derived from it (e.g. his income and property) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others, he should be free to act in his own self interest.</p></div><p>The real question is: what happens when your self interest and your rights conflict with the self interest and rights of others?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We follow the philosophy of people like von Mises or Murray Rothbard : every individual has a right to his life , liberty , and everything derived from it ( e.g .
his income and property ) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others , he should be free to act in his own self interest.The real question is : what happens when your self interest and your rights conflict with the self interest and rights of others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We follow the philosophy of people like von Mises or Murray Rothbard: every individual has a right to his life, liberty, and everything derived from it (e.g.
his income and property) and as long as he does not interfere with the rights of others, he should be free to act in his own self interest.The real question is: what happens when your self interest and your rights conflict with the self interest and rights of others?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879863</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256566860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Libertarians of all stripes... from Rand's Objectivists to the Austrian School people... place property rights as the most precious of liberties."</p><p>And that's where I part ways with libertarianism as a philosophy, because 'property' is often defined as 'the right to control OTHER people's use of their time and labour, as long as something I supposedly 'own' was involved.'.</p><p>This is the definition of 'property' which is, strictly speaking, theft. Because it's not about me using my stuff and living my life - it's about you using stuff which I say is 'mine' (even though I may well be an absentee landlord) and therefore me scooping up and controlling the fruits of your labour without doing anything to earn it.</p><p>It's a subtle distinction between the two types of 'property' but one which has far-reaching implications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Libertarians of all stripes... from Rand 's Objectivists to the Austrian School people... place property rights as the most precious of liberties .
" And that 's where I part ways with libertarianism as a philosophy , because 'property ' is often defined as 'the right to control OTHER people 's use of their time and labour , as long as something I supposedly 'own ' was involved .
'.This is the definition of 'property ' which is , strictly speaking , theft .
Because it 's not about me using my stuff and living my life - it 's about you using stuff which I say is 'mine ' ( even though I may well be an absentee landlord ) and therefore me scooping up and controlling the fruits of your labour without doing anything to earn it.It 's a subtle distinction between the two types of 'property ' but one which has far-reaching implications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Libertarians of all stripes... from Rand's Objectivists to the Austrian School people... place property rights as the most precious of liberties.
"And that's where I part ways with libertarianism as a philosophy, because 'property' is often defined as 'the right to control OTHER people's use of their time and labour, as long as something I supposedly 'own' was involved.
'.This is the definition of 'property' which is, strictly speaking, theft.
Because it's not about me using my stuff and living my life - it's about you using stuff which I say is 'mine' (even though I may well be an absentee landlord) and therefore me scooping up and controlling the fruits of your labour without doing anything to earn it.It's a subtle distinction between the two types of 'property' but one which has far-reaching implications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850611</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>cje</author>
	<datestamp>1256331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's freedom?</p><p><i>I'm</i> freedom, that's who.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's freedom ? I 'm freedom , that 's who .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's freedom?I'm freedom, that's who.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29856715</id>
	<title>Of course most of them attack it...</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1256400180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, ESR and a few others aside....</p><p>On the one hand, the old cartoon....</p><p>And on the hard side: of course they do. All of them are *sure* that if they work hard enough, they'll be RICH!!! The reality is, of course, that overwhelmingly, they're either millionaires now, or they're suckers.</p><p>They claim to believe, religiously, in the so-called "free market" (as if some such ever existed), in exactly the same way that funnymentalist Christians claim to believe in the message of Jesus... but neither actually follows the implications of that belief.</p><p>When have you seen libertarians attack megacorps and cartels... like Boeing/LockMart/NorthGrum, or WalMart? Actually, the latter's an excellent example: they say they believe in freedom of association, but hate unions, and say we don't need them, then add that "government is not the answer"... but when asked who else can protect us against Big Uncle - the corporations that are *far* more invasive in our daily lives than any government outside of Nazi Germany or Ceauescu's Romania.</p><p>Then claim that we all have "leverage" with the companies we work for (tell that to WalMart employees).</p><p>Finally, I used to argue with a Libertarian (member of the party) in the early nineties, and one day stopped him in his tracks. I asked him how we get from here and now to his utopia: do we take everything away from everyone, and divvy it up equally, like the beginning of Monopoly (tm), or do we start from where we are, with you and me with zip, and Bill Gates and the Waltons with billions and billions?</p><p>He said they were still discussing that down at the "club". I still haven't heard an answer.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , ESR and a few others aside....On the one hand , the old cartoon....And on the hard side : of course they do .
All of them are * sure * that if they work hard enough , they 'll be RICH ! ! !
The reality is , of course , that overwhelmingly , they 're either millionaires now , or they 're suckers.They claim to believe , religiously , in the so-called " free market " ( as if some such ever existed ) , in exactly the same way that funnymentalist Christians claim to believe in the message of Jesus... but neither actually follows the implications of that belief.When have you seen libertarians attack megacorps and cartels... like Boeing/LockMart/NorthGrum , or WalMart ?
Actually , the latter 's an excellent example : they say they believe in freedom of association , but hate unions , and say we do n't need them , then add that " government is not the answer " ... but when asked who else can protect us against Big Uncle - the corporations that are * far * more invasive in our daily lives than any government outside of Nazi Germany or Ceauescu 's Romania.Then claim that we all have " leverage " with the companies we work for ( tell that to WalMart employees ) .Finally , I used to argue with a Libertarian ( member of the party ) in the early nineties , and one day stopped him in his tracks .
I asked him how we get from here and now to his utopia : do we take everything away from everyone , and divvy it up equally , like the beginning of Monopoly ( tm ) , or do we start from where we are , with you and me with zip , and Bill Gates and the Waltons with billions and billions ? He said they were still discussing that down at the " club " .
I still have n't heard an answer .
            mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, ESR and a few others aside....On the one hand, the old cartoon....And on the hard side: of course they do.
All of them are *sure* that if they work hard enough, they'll be RICH!!!
The reality is, of course, that overwhelmingly, they're either millionaires now, or they're suckers.They claim to believe, religiously, in the so-called "free market" (as if some such ever existed), in exactly the same way that funnymentalist Christians claim to believe in the message of Jesus... but neither actually follows the implications of that belief.When have you seen libertarians attack megacorps and cartels... like Boeing/LockMart/NorthGrum, or WalMart?
Actually, the latter's an excellent example: they say they believe in freedom of association, but hate unions, and say we don't need them, then add that "government is not the answer"... but when asked who else can protect us against Big Uncle - the corporations that are *far* more invasive in our daily lives than any government outside of Nazi Germany or Ceauescu's Romania.Then claim that we all have "leverage" with the companies we work for (tell that to WalMart employees).Finally, I used to argue with a Libertarian (member of the party) in the early nineties, and one day stopped him in his tracks.
I asked him how we get from here and now to his utopia: do we take everything away from everyone, and divvy it up equally, like the beginning of Monopoly (tm), or do we start from where we are, with you and me with zip, and Bill Gates and the Waltons with billions and billions?He said they were still discussing that down at the "club".
I still haven't heard an answer.
            mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852247</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>grahamoconnor</author>
	<datestamp>1256295840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So because there is something *you* want that isn't provided on terms that *you* prefer, you think it's ok to simply force others to bend to *your* will rather than meet their terms (or simply not partake of their offering)? How does that make you any better than them? They want their terms and you want it on yours, and somehow your default position is that your terms are more important than theirs to the point of justifying force (legislation) to get your way?<br>And anyway, if you have a need maybe others do too. So perhaps if all your ISPs are ignoring a market niche which you have spotted, rather than moving to another country you could try to fill that niche? Or have those ISPs used force (legislation) to prevent competition from nimble startups like you from being able to operate. Hmmm, that old force doesn't look so appealing now does it, now that it isn't helping you that is. But to be consistent you'd have to agree that it was right for them to use it to get things on their terms, after all it was exactly what you wanted to do yourself so it must be ok right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So because there is something * you * want that is n't provided on terms that * you * prefer , you think it 's ok to simply force others to bend to * your * will rather than meet their terms ( or simply not partake of their offering ) ?
How does that make you any better than them ?
They want their terms and you want it on yours , and somehow your default position is that your terms are more important than theirs to the point of justifying force ( legislation ) to get your way ? And anyway , if you have a need maybe others do too .
So perhaps if all your ISPs are ignoring a market niche which you have spotted , rather than moving to another country you could try to fill that niche ?
Or have those ISPs used force ( legislation ) to prevent competition from nimble startups like you from being able to operate .
Hmmm , that old force does n't look so appealing now does it , now that it is n't helping you that is .
But to be consistent you 'd have to agree that it was right for them to use it to get things on their terms , after all it was exactly what you wanted to do yourself so it must be ok right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So because there is something *you* want that isn't provided on terms that *you* prefer, you think it's ok to simply force others to bend to *your* will rather than meet their terms (or simply not partake of their offering)?
How does that make you any better than them?
They want their terms and you want it on yours, and somehow your default position is that your terms are more important than theirs to the point of justifying force (legislation) to get your way?And anyway, if you have a need maybe others do too.
So perhaps if all your ISPs are ignoring a market niche which you have spotted, rather than moving to another country you could try to fill that niche?
Or have those ISPs used force (legislation) to prevent competition from nimble startups like you from being able to operate.
Hmmm, that old force doesn't look so appealing now does it, now that it isn't helping you that is.
But to be consistent you'd have to agree that it was right for them to use it to get things on their terms, after all it was exactly what you wanted to do yourself so it must be ok right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847507</id>
	<title>Any true...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1256320140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any true libertarian recognizes that copyright is an artificial regulation produced by the government and therefore should be reduced to a minimum length (think 5-20 years or so), or abolished and the DMCA further reduces a free economy. If we have sane copyright, reduced patents (Again is government regulation of an economy), and less government involvement (so governments can't mandate closed standards) we essentially have the perfect system for free software. Propriatary software can still exist but it is checked by the fact that people can legally use it after a certain sane amount of time, little to no patents, the ability to decompile and redistribute modified sources would make it be a free economy for both authors of software and consumers. Think of it this way, we might have Windows 9X in the public domain by now, we can decompile it and use it as more or less of a backend for WINE to emulate Windows, while NT might not yet be in the public domain, a lot of legacy programs are still used, this would get us one step closer to a perfect Linux system. <br> <br>

Any libertarian who is against government intervention should be against copyright, and even though RMS might be against a state in which there is no or a very weak copyright, it is a plus for both free software and consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any true libertarian recognizes that copyright is an artificial regulation produced by the government and therefore should be reduced to a minimum length ( think 5-20 years or so ) , or abolished and the DMCA further reduces a free economy .
If we have sane copyright , reduced patents ( Again is government regulation of an economy ) , and less government involvement ( so governments ca n't mandate closed standards ) we essentially have the perfect system for free software .
Propriatary software can still exist but it is checked by the fact that people can legally use it after a certain sane amount of time , little to no patents , the ability to decompile and redistribute modified sources would make it be a free economy for both authors of software and consumers .
Think of it this way , we might have Windows 9X in the public domain by now , we can decompile it and use it as more or less of a backend for WINE to emulate Windows , while NT might not yet be in the public domain , a lot of legacy programs are still used , this would get us one step closer to a perfect Linux system .
Any libertarian who is against government intervention should be against copyright , and even though RMS might be against a state in which there is no or a very weak copyright , it is a plus for both free software and consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any true libertarian recognizes that copyright is an artificial regulation produced by the government and therefore should be reduced to a minimum length (think 5-20 years or so), or abolished and the DMCA further reduces a free economy.
If we have sane copyright, reduced patents (Again is government regulation of an economy), and less government involvement (so governments can't mandate closed standards) we essentially have the perfect system for free software.
Propriatary software can still exist but it is checked by the fact that people can legally use it after a certain sane amount of time, little to no patents, the ability to decompile and redistribute modified sources would make it be a free economy for both authors of software and consumers.
Think of it this way, we might have Windows 9X in the public domain by now, we can decompile it and use it as more or less of a backend for WINE to emulate Windows, while NT might not yet be in the public domain, a lot of legacy programs are still used, this would get us one step closer to a perfect Linux system.
Any libertarian who is against government intervention should be against copyright, and even though RMS might be against a state in which there is no or a very weak copyright, it is a plus for both free software and consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851005</id>
	<title>Libertarians are more about...</title>
	<author>WgT2</author>
	<datestamp>1256289840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libertarians are more about individuals' freedoms.</p><p>The GPL is about software itself being free: free from others making it closed sourced.<br>The BSD-type of license make the wielder of the software free to do what they want with the software - even make it closed sourced (as long as there is accreditation of origin).</p><p>So, it's not surprising when a Libertarian criticizes 'free software' - assuming that software is not released under a BSD-type of license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians are more about individuals ' freedoms.The GPL is about software itself being free : free from others making it closed sourced.The BSD-type of license make the wielder of the software free to do what they want with the software - even make it closed sourced ( as long as there is accreditation of origin ) .So , it 's not surprising when a Libertarian criticizes 'free software ' - assuming that software is not released under a BSD-type of license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians are more about individuals' freedoms.The GPL is about software itself being free: free from others making it closed sourced.The BSD-type of license make the wielder of the software free to do what they want with the software - even make it closed sourced (as long as there is accreditation of origin).So, it's not surprising when a Libertarian criticizes 'free software' - assuming that software is not released under a BSD-type of license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think self proclaimed libertarians forget when they are arguing their pure-capitalism ideals, is that their ideology based on Adam Smith's philosophy isn't only against a government regulatory power... he was against ANY entity with too much power (big corporations). <br> <br>

If anything FOSS should fit perfectly with libertarian, social liberal, and even free market ideology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think self proclaimed libertarians forget when they are arguing their pure-capitalism ideals , is that their ideology based on Adam Smith 's philosophy is n't only against a government regulatory power... he was against ANY entity with too much power ( big corporations ) .
If anything FOSS should fit perfectly with libertarian , social liberal , and even free market ideology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think self proclaimed libertarians forget when they are arguing their pure-capitalism ideals, is that their ideology based on Adam Smith's philosophy isn't only against a government regulatory power... he was against ANY entity with too much power (big corporations).
If anything FOSS should fit perfectly with libertarian, social liberal, and even free market ideology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849599</id>
	<title>Not speaking for all libertarians</title>
	<author>Digypro</author>
	<datestamp>1256327580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While this may be the opinion of the small group of libertarians who did this study, I know for a fact that many proponents of the Austrian School of Economics would not agree. The Austrian school forms a basis for libertarian philosophy. There are several Austrians who argue against IP altogether, so I see this as a misrepresentation of the platform. Look up Stephan Kinsella for instance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this may be the opinion of the small group of libertarians who did this study , I know for a fact that many proponents of the Austrian School of Economics would not agree .
The Austrian school forms a basis for libertarian philosophy .
There are several Austrians who argue against IP altogether , so I see this as a misrepresentation of the platform .
Look up Stephan Kinsella for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this may be the opinion of the small group of libertarians who did this study, I know for a fact that many proponents of the Austrian School of Economics would not agree.
The Austrian school forms a basis for libertarian philosophy.
There are several Austrians who argue against IP altogether, so I see this as a misrepresentation of the platform.
Look up Stephan Kinsella for instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29857939</id>
	<title>News flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256409840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody who has studied REAL history knows that Marxism/communism (basically the collectivist doctrine) is a fraud concocted by the power elite. By elite I don't mean the millionaire down the street or even the Wall Street billionaire, I mean the figures who run the world from the shadows. Libertarianism might very well come from the same source; I do not know. But in both cases, the elite rests at the top. The difference is that in libertarianism/capitalism (semantics aside, you get the idea) the "common people" have room to acquire wealth; exploitation is inevitable. In communism the cattle (or "common people" if you prefer) are equally POOR, sans a few isolated cases such as political leaders who are in line with the official doctrine. If you've got the brainpower and some basic resources with which to employ it, you will favor capitalism. If you don't want to work and you want the government to spoon-feed you everything, you will favor collectivism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who has studied REAL history knows that Marxism/communism ( basically the collectivist doctrine ) is a fraud concocted by the power elite .
By elite I do n't mean the millionaire down the street or even the Wall Street billionaire , I mean the figures who run the world from the shadows .
Libertarianism might very well come from the same source ; I do not know .
But in both cases , the elite rests at the top .
The difference is that in libertarianism/capitalism ( semantics aside , you get the idea ) the " common people " have room to acquire wealth ; exploitation is inevitable .
In communism the cattle ( or " common people " if you prefer ) are equally POOR , sans a few isolated cases such as political leaders who are in line with the official doctrine .
If you 've got the brainpower and some basic resources with which to employ it , you will favor capitalism .
If you do n't want to work and you want the government to spoon-feed you everything , you will favor collectivism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who has studied REAL history knows that Marxism/communism (basically the collectivist doctrine) is a fraud concocted by the power elite.
By elite I don't mean the millionaire down the street or even the Wall Street billionaire, I mean the figures who run the world from the shadows.
Libertarianism might very well come from the same source; I do not know.
But in both cases, the elite rests at the top.
The difference is that in libertarianism/capitalism (semantics aside, you get the idea) the "common people" have room to acquire wealth; exploitation is inevitable.
In communism the cattle (or "common people" if you prefer) are equally POOR, sans a few isolated cases such as political leaders who are in line with the official doctrine.
If you've got the brainpower and some basic resources with which to employ it, you will favor capitalism.
If you don't want to work and you want the government to spoon-feed you everything, you will favor collectivism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848287</id>
	<title>Someone needs to remind them that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's OSX is in large part derived from FreeBSD which is an Open Source operating System.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's OSX is in large part derived from FreeBSD which is an Open Source operating System .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's OSX is in large part derived from FreeBSD which is an Open Source operating System.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1256320140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart. They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society. Rather, it's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want, keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.
<br> <br>
I say this as a political libertarian with social conservative sensibilities. The single biggest reason why libertarianism is going nowhere is because it's such an unfocused movement that grabs whatever liberty it can and that doesn't even pretend to have a higher vision than "I'll get mine." That turns off most voters. Even though under a libertarian system there'd be no corporate welfare at all (since there'd be a simple tax code and subsidizes would be outlawed in the constitution), their behavior gives normal, non-ideological people good reason to believe that a libertarian government would look like a plutocratic-kleptocratic oligarchy of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselves, and vice totally out of control because libertarians never talk about the practical matter of **regulating vice** so it's like buying beer, not a free-for-all where any store can legally sell your kid crack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart .
They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society .
Rather , it 's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want , keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get .
I say this as a political libertarian with social conservative sensibilities .
The single biggest reason why libertarianism is going nowhere is because it 's such an unfocused movement that grabs whatever liberty it can and that does n't even pretend to have a higher vision than " I 'll get mine .
" That turns off most voters .
Even though under a libertarian system there 'd be no corporate welfare at all ( since there 'd be a simple tax code and subsidizes would be outlawed in the constitution ) , their behavior gives normal , non-ideological people good reason to believe that a libertarian government would look like a plutocratic-kleptocratic oligarchy of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselves , and vice totally out of control because libertarians never talk about the practical matter of * * regulating vice * * so it 's like buying beer , not a free-for-all where any store can legally sell your kid crack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because most libertarians are selfish bastards at heart.
They are not concerned with such collectivist notions as creating a sustainable free society.
Rather, it's all about maximizing their ability to put any chemical or object in their body they want, keep all of their money and hire the cheapest labor they can get.
I say this as a political libertarian with social conservative sensibilities.
The single biggest reason why libertarianism is going nowhere is because it's such an unfocused movement that grabs whatever liberty it can and that doesn't even pretend to have a higher vision than "I'll get mine.
" That turns off most voters.
Even though under a libertarian system there'd be no corporate welfare at all (since there'd be a simple tax code and subsidizes would be outlawed in the constitution), their behavior gives normal, non-ideological people good reason to believe that a libertarian government would look like a plutocratic-kleptocratic oligarchy of rich people burdening the poor while enriching themselves, and vice totally out of control because libertarians never talk about the practical matter of **regulating vice** so it's like buying beer, not a free-for-all where any store can legally sell your kid crack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853565</id>
	<title>Useful Idiots</title>
	<author>cmholm</author>
	<datestamp>1256308260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Heartland Institute uses libertarian concepts, but from its start has been a front for wealthy conservative industrialists(<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland\_Institute" title="sourcewatch.org">1). As TFA describes the HI's report, it's the kind of libertarianism that is only concerned with limiting the power of the state, and is mute over injustices perpetrated by parties other than the state(</a> [sourcewatch.org]<a href="http://timothyblee.com/?p=1360" title="timothyblee.com">2</a> [timothyblee.com]).</p><p>Mr. Bee is correct to note that although Stallman, et al, are not libertarians, the F/OSS community is in substance a real-life expression of a libertarian ideal. Market competition is a destroyer of marketable value, down to the logical zero. Profit arises from something monopolized, be it an idea, a process, or a thing... like the only gas station for the next 100 miles. F/OSS theoretically zeros out the marketability of software, but unlocks other kinds of value for the consumer.</p><p>Getting back to the HI report, Mr. Moglen claims not to like network neutrality based on the language of F/OSS evangelists. The fact is, his paymasters in telecom - in a federal move to make telecom competitive - did compete for a time, until they decided they'd rather enjoy the monopolist's profit by merging, than continue to the nirvana of its creative destruction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Heartland Institute uses libertarian concepts , but from its start has been a front for wealthy conservative industrialists ( 1 ) .
As TFA describes the HI 's report , it 's the kind of libertarianism that is only concerned with limiting the power of the state , and is mute over injustices perpetrated by parties other than the state ( [ sourcewatch.org ] 2 [ timothyblee.com ] ) .Mr .
Bee is correct to note that although Stallman , et al , are not libertarians , the F/OSS community is in substance a real-life expression of a libertarian ideal .
Market competition is a destroyer of marketable value , down to the logical zero .
Profit arises from something monopolized , be it an idea , a process , or a thing... like the only gas station for the next 100 miles .
F/OSS theoretically zeros out the marketability of software , but unlocks other kinds of value for the consumer.Getting back to the HI report , Mr. Moglen claims not to like network neutrality based on the language of F/OSS evangelists .
The fact is , his paymasters in telecom - in a federal move to make telecom competitive - did compete for a time , until they decided they 'd rather enjoy the monopolist 's profit by merging , than continue to the nirvana of its creative destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Heartland Institute uses libertarian concepts, but from its start has been a front for wealthy conservative industrialists(1).
As TFA describes the HI's report, it's the kind of libertarianism that is only concerned with limiting the power of the state, and is mute over injustices perpetrated by parties other than the state( [sourcewatch.org]2 [timothyblee.com]).Mr.
Bee is correct to note that although Stallman, et al, are not libertarians, the F/OSS community is in substance a real-life expression of a libertarian ideal.
Market competition is a destroyer of marketable value, down to the logical zero.
Profit arises from something monopolized, be it an idea, a process, or a thing... like the only gas station for the next 100 miles.
F/OSS theoretically zeros out the marketability of software, but unlocks other kinds of value for the consumer.Getting back to the HI report, Mr. Moglen claims not to like network neutrality based on the language of F/OSS evangelists.
The fact is, his paymasters in telecom - in a federal move to make telecom competitive - did compete for a time, until they decided they'd rather enjoy the monopolist's profit by merging, than continue to the nirvana of its creative destruction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848047</id>
	<title>Libertarian / Laissez Faire / Free Market</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1256322060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody wants to wrap themselves in the flag of the free market, and claim that their view is the definition of free market. Let me take a quick moment to define a few terms:</p><p>Free Market: Objective is to maximize the efficiency of allocation of resources by maximizing the ability of people to make rational, informed, free decisions on how to transact liquid wealth.</p><p>Laissez Faire: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in corporate decision making (typically except those decisions regarding contracts, copyright, trademark, patents, and trade dress).</p><p>Libertarian: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in all decision making (typically except those decisions regarding contracts, copyright, trademark, patents, and trade dress).</p><p>Capitalism: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by maximizing return on capital.</p><p>The proponents of each of the latter three beliefs above profess that their belief system is synonymous with the free market. However, since they are all explicitly maximizing or minimizing different things than what the free market maximizes, it is not by definition that they are synonymous. Hence their hypothesis of synonymity is subject to analysis and disproof -- even if you fully accept the primacy of the free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody wants to wrap themselves in the flag of the free market , and claim that their view is the definition of free market .
Let me take a quick moment to define a few terms : Free Market : Objective is to maximize the efficiency of allocation of resources by maximizing the ability of people to make rational , informed , free decisions on how to transact liquid wealth.Laissez Faire : Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in corporate decision making ( typically except those decisions regarding contracts , copyright , trademark , patents , and trade dress ) .Libertarian : Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in all decision making ( typically except those decisions regarding contracts , copyright , trademark , patents , and trade dress ) .Capitalism : Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by maximizing return on capital.The proponents of each of the latter three beliefs above profess that their belief system is synonymous with the free market .
However , since they are all explicitly maximizing or minimizing different things than what the free market maximizes , it is not by definition that they are synonymous .
Hence their hypothesis of synonymity is subject to analysis and disproof -- even if you fully accept the primacy of the free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody wants to wrap themselves in the flag of the free market, and claim that their view is the definition of free market.
Let me take a quick moment to define a few terms:Free Market: Objective is to maximize the efficiency of allocation of resources by maximizing the ability of people to make rational, informed, free decisions on how to transact liquid wealth.Laissez Faire: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in corporate decision making (typically except those decisions regarding contracts, copyright, trademark, patents, and trade dress).Libertarian: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in all decision making (typically except those decisions regarding contracts, copyright, trademark, patents, and trade dress).Capitalism: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by maximizing return on capital.The proponents of each of the latter three beliefs above profess that their belief system is synonymous with the free market.
However, since they are all explicitly maximizing or minimizing different things than what the free market maximizes, it is not by definition that they are synonymous.
Hence their hypothesis of synonymity is subject to analysis and disproof -- even if you fully accept the primacy of the free market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847675</id>
	<title>Re:who's freedom?</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1256320740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, we focus on <i>everyones</i> freedoms.  The collectivists focus on "how can I benefit by taking from others".</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , we focus on everyones freedoms .
The collectivists focus on " how can I benefit by taking from others " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, we focus on everyones freedoms.
The collectivists focus on "how can I benefit by taking from others".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>Mprx</author>
	<datestamp>1256329440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sharing of both Free and proprietary software is already restricted by force (copyright law). RMS approves of this use of force only for the purposes of preserving the four freedoms of Free software. The true libertarian solution would be to abolish copyright altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sharing of both Free and proprietary software is already restricted by force ( copyright law ) .
RMS approves of this use of force only for the purposes of preserving the four freedoms of Free software .
The true libertarian solution would be to abolish copyright altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sharing of both Free and proprietary software is already restricted by force (copyright law).
RMS approves of this use of force only for the purposes of preserving the four freedoms of Free software.
The true libertarian solution would be to abolish copyright altogether.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847661</id>
	<title>Re:Ceci n'est pas une pipe</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1256320740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>just because you call you FO$$ propaganda "freedom" does not make it such</htmltext>
<tokenext>just because you call you FO $ $ propaganda " freedom " does not make it such</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just because you call you FO$$ propaganda "freedom" does not make it such</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469</id>
	<title>Re:Explained by a Simple Formula</title>
	<author>cjb658</author>
	<datestamp>1256323560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A free market cannot exist without regulation.  Without regulation, everything becomes a monopoly as the largest companies erect barriers to entry for their competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A free market can not exist without regulation .
Without regulation , everything becomes a monopoly as the largest companies erect barriers to entry for their competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A free market cannot exist without regulation.
Without regulation, everything becomes a monopoly as the largest companies erect barriers to entry for their competitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29855049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29863137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29858069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29860353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29856777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29992786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1446219_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29858069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29860353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29863137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848469
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851385
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850613
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853207
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851991
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848179
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849081
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850407
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850295
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852377
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851221
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850075
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852005
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879967
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853661
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852485
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851609
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852607
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851829
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29879733
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29859609
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852227
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851219
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853521
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851275
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852565
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852501
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850143
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852247
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852171
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29856777
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852367
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850597
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852493
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851287
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29855049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29992786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847761
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849695
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850707
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849817
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29853565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29854655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29852313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29851771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29848605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29850883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29849409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1446219.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1446219.29847809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
