Roger Stone. Any relation to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

How would I know? Isn't all life related on some level?

Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause.
— karl stone

did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign.
— karl stone

Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying. — unenlightened

The different constituencies of the vote are marked by educational attainment and socio-economic class. What was credible to one group was not credible to the other.

Leave told lies to the uneducated - provocative lies, like the EU is a foreign dictatorship, and responsible for mass immigration. Cameron did nothing to challenge those lies.

You and I know that's not true, because the EU is a democratic system, and the UK government failed to put accession controls in place from 2007 - as allowed under EU law, and then failed to remove jobless migrants - as allowed under EU law.

Inis doesn't know it's not true. He thinks he's giving Cameron the black eye he deserves for failing to meet his silly 'tens of thousands' immigration pledge - "or vote me out."

So Inis does.

David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose.
— karl stone

You have zero evidence for your baseless fantastical claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/donald-tusk-warned-david-cameron-about-stupid-eu-referendum-bbc — Inis

Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.

Just like 800,000 federal employees!
— karl stone

And their families. :sad: — frank

And their pets! Think of the puppies!

No, but seriously - President Evil doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.

David Cameron campaigned for Remain. — Inis

David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose.

Inis - you have failed to grasp the thrust of my thesis. You are talking to yourself. So thanks, but no thanks. We're done.

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy.
— Inis

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.
— karl stone

I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.” — Inis

No mention of a 'functioning democracy.' And what's the sample size of this poll? It's says - "nearly half of leave voters' - but that's misleading. They didn't interview all leave voters, or half of them. Further, the questions asked now - about why people voted leave, very likely have little to do with why people voted at the time. They are responding to a list of choices - categories into which the survey must place them for the purposes of the report. Reality isn't like that.

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain
— karl stone

That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g. — Inis

Try this video from 2009, and tell me Cameron didn't want a referendum but was forced into it by UKIP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o

British people don't want to be part of a burgeoning fascist state with its own army. — Inis

I assume you think that describes the EU - but it just doesn't. The EU is an elegantly democratic institution - with human rights, workers rights, consumer and environmental protection built into the founding treaties. Those values are the very antithesis of fascism. I can't imagine you even know what the word fascism means. You're making it more and more difficult to maintain the idea that you are not foolhardy, but were merely misled.

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy. — Inis

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.

Also, there was not a single argument to Remain, other than fear mongering, and that's not really an argument. — Inis

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain.

When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe. — Inis

I know by the very fact you say that, you have no real idea what it means. You stand as proof that:

Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption. — karl stone

"Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist." -- David Attenborough.

Economists are concerned with growth. They want to know how much the economy is growing. If the economy slows down significantly, we call it a recession. Presumably the more the economy grows each year, the better. But the earth has finite resources, and can't grow indefinitely. So, what's going to happen to the economy when the earth runs out of resources? How is it possible to have more growth? Aren't we destined for a great depression that we can't recover from? Perhaps we need to reconsider our notions that a growth hungry economy is necessary, and accept the possibility of a steady state economy.

Do you believe in the crazy idea that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet? — Purple Pond

I believe we can achieve sustainability without significantly altering the economic model. The changes that are required are philosophical and political. Our mistake is about 400 years old, and concerns Galileo - and the presentation of his thesis 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' (1633) to the Church. He was arrested and tried for heresy - because his findings contradicted Biblical orthodoxy. His work, which contained the first formal presentation of scientific method - was prohibited, and this had a chilling effect on all subsequent philosophy and scientific endeavor.

In effect, science was branded heretical - even as it was employed to power the industrial revolution from 1730. It proved a useful tool, but as an understanding of reality - science remained "grievously suspect of heresy." So religious and political ideology - particularly the Divine Rights of Kings the basis of the sovereign nation state in the Treaty of Westphalia (1650) was maintained, and technology was applied for the ideologically conceived good - as opposed to the scientifically conceived good.

Correcting that mistake is difficult, and requires of us a little sophistication. We need to protect ideologically ordered society, while at the same time - recognizing the significance of scientific truth, and applying technology accordingly. I believe that's possible - and furthermore, that in that context - capitalism is sustainable. Not merely because there are vast untapped resources on earth - and an infinite supply beyond, but because applied correctly, technology multiplies resources.

Foregoing the miracle of 'the invisible hand' at the heart of capitalism would be a foolish mistake. Foregoing the personal and political freedom for which capitalism provides would be criminal. It's not capitalism that's the problem - but rather the religious and political context within which it operates. Directed in the course of scientific truth - capitalism can easily achieve sustainability.

Fuck it, screw the foolhardy masses who voted to leave. Let's work towards reversing it in a way that'll minimise the fallout. — S

I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.

Well I found something of a connection that makes your conspiracy theory a bit more likely...

2012. https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/jcb-boss-sir-anthony-bamford-named-in-cash-for-cameron-scandal/8628352.article

2019. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/24/jcb-paid-boris-johnson-10000-three-days-before-speech?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR0I6CGObVxEOWvnFCOQN1q-Z8dUWrdiIYzutOkT0KOv3vjOUpwaZHoyff8

The same fellow supporting remain and leave champions is a bit suspicious... — unenlightened

It is rather odd how that chap seems intent on giving all his money to the Tory party. I rather suspect however, there's a PIIC covering up the whole rotten saga - so it will never come out in the British press.

He was collateral damage. — frank

Just like 800,000 federal employees!

Your talent for sycophancy should serve you well - or at least, keep you alive!
— karl stone

I'm just trying to make a living here. Maybe I do a little brown-nosing. What have your principles gained you? — frank

What did Micheal Cohen's sycophantic adoration of President Evil get him? He got his records seized, hauled over the coals by the FBI, and while facing a long time in jail for crimes he committed on President Evil's behalf - his family were threatened, and his father in law was ratted out on live TV.

Just heard President Evil RAT-OUT Cohen's father in law.

The father of the wife of a man who worked for him, and is going to jail because his records were seized.

New low.

Geraldo?
— karl stone

Yes. I'm on location in Russia. — frank

Your talent for sycophancy should serve you well - or at least, keep you alive!

If he was giving the SoU, and his head split open and teeth and tentacles spewed out - Fox News would still be like:

'Great job Mr President!' — karl stone

That's what the White House has been missing: more teeth and testicles. — frank

Geraldo?

President Evil
— karl stone

Who else read it in that voice? — S

If he was giving the SoU, and his head split open and teeth and tentacles spewed out - Fox News would still be like:

'Great job Mr President!'

President Evil — karl stone

Thank god we kept our machine guns. The zombies are upon us. — frank

Fake news! — karl stone

It's truthful hyperbole. — frank

If you're Russian!

President Evil — karl stone

Thank god we kept our machine guns. The zombies are upon us. — frank

Fake news!

President Evil

I think we're so much on the same page that I won't quibble.

brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed,
— karl stone

This, conspiracy or mere tragedy, is the heart of the matter. And here is the connection with the US. Who knew til the shutdown that middle class Americans were just one pay check away from penury and food banks? And their 'take back control' hero was Trump!

Wouldn't you say though that the real problem is that the game of monopoly has reached its end, the winners have taken all, and the game is over. — unenlightened

I have a scientific conception of reality that recognizes religious, political and economic ideological concepts as conventions and traditions arising from our evolutionary history - and in those terms, this is but a moment after dawn for humankind. An awkward moment to be sure, but entirely negotiable. The very dynamics I criticize - I criticize as absolutes that exclude a scientific understanding of reality, but in acceptance of scientific truth they are cultural treasures, science can easily afford to protect and celebrate - while providing for a long and prosperous future.

do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
— karl stone

No.

Well I could probably muster some evidence that the EU is not responsible for the woes it is credited with, because - well it just isn't a monolith by design, but a common bureaucracy controlled by the negotiations and agreements between nations. The democratic deficit is put there to restrict its power, not to augment it. If you look at what the UK has accepted, and what it has rejected, I think you will find support for it being the UK government's concern to protect its financial powers more than its industrial; Hull can die as long as London thrives is UK policy, not EU. — unenlightened

I studied the EU as part of a politics degree, and I'd like to see a United States of Europe. The 'us and them' dynamic underlying Leave campaign rhetoric and opinions is, as you suggest here - fundamentally false. We are the EU in as much as other member states are the EU. So where you said above: 'We got a bad deal over fishing, because...' That's just not how it is. The common fisheries policy has serious flaws - but it was a policy developed in coordination with member states represented in Council and the Parliament.

In my own view, fishing is barbaric and should be scrapped. A United States of Europe would allow us to develop and apply the technology to farm fish on an industrial scale (pun not intended). But anything smacking of federalism has been automatically resisted by the UK. In as much as Leavers have been denied a referendum, so have those who desire a US of Europe. It's what the UK signed up to - an explicit ambition to promote 'ever closer union among the people's of Europe' - a commitment with regard to which the UK government have unilaterally acted in bad faith since 1973.

So now, when I hear 'us and them' - when I hear 'sovereignty' trumpeted as an unquestionable good, I have to ask myself, to what purposes has that sovereignty been put, and the assumption that 'ever closer union' is resisted in defense of the interests of the British people is somewhere between dubious and ludicrous. They sold off all the council housing and haven't built any social housing in 40 years, sold off the utilities to their pals in the city for peanuts, they opted out of EU legislation designed to protect workers - the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty - to create a low wage low regulation jobs market, attractive to immigration, and subsidized shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding.

And so on and on. But to get back to the point, a brexit referendum sold on an 'us and them' dynamic, that simply presumes government employs sovereign powers in the interests of the British people, that blames the EU - for problems created by acting in bad faith toward the EU, and when you add in the corrupt nature of the referendum, and the fact that brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed, I'm rendered speechless with anger. Suffice to say, brexit is the very worst remedy imaginable.

Not at all. I'm saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy politics and economics has no beliefs, no principles and no morals. I'm saying that neither Cameron or May give a fig about anything but their own position and their own power and status.

I'm saying Cameron wanted a referendum because he was losing support to Ukip, not because he had an opinion about the EU. I'm saying that hatred of the EU has been manufactured over years to divert attention from the real causes of the social degradation that has been taking place. We got a bad deal over fishing, because the people negotiating for us cared more about banking and insurance, and for them fish was a price worth paying. The British government has presided over regional decline, and impoverishment, and blamed it on the EU and Johnny foreigner. They really don't care about in or out, deal or no deal, because their world is tucked away on the Cayman Islands and won't be affected. — unenlightened

Your opinion makes more sense than most unenlightened views; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?

Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.
— karl stone
Why so?

How couldn't the rulers be oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing could go wrong? To think that fine, we have the support for EU membership, perhaps we can silence the opposition with a referendum that we will win? — ssu

If there was evidence showing a long and contentious relationship between two neighbors, and one of them was recorded on video telling the other 'I'm going to kill you' - and was then later discovered standing over the body with a bloody knife in hand, his claiming 'it was an accident' is not a defense. Clear evidence of premeditation renders false any such claim.

What you are asking me to believe is that a man who said he wanted a referendum, and who provided for a referendum, didn't in fact want the referendum he provided for. That's not credible. Yet people have been led to believe that Cameron didn't want a referendum, but was forced into it by the rise of UKIP. When you look at the voting statistics, that's clearly not the case. UKIP followed in Cameron's wake, only making significant gains from 2013 onward.

If you say you will do something and then you do it - it is a fact that you intended it. Cameron intended to have a referendum, and he provided for one as a manifesto commitment, such that it could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. He could easily have brought forward a bill in the normal way - and discharged any obligation he felt, knowing it would be rejected by Parliament as it was in 2011 by a massive majority of 485/111.

I could go on. I've stated the facts above - and there are a great long list of other things that cannot be explained in any other terms than that Cameron deliberately sabotaged his own credibility on key issues in the referendum campaign - which he provided for by undemocratic means, not least immigration, and adopted the Remain position in order to lose on purpose.

Having a degree from a highly appreciated university and rising in the ranks of a political party doesn't mean you have a grasp of political reality at all. Stupidity here doesn't mean that the person would score low in an IQ test. Stupidity here means that you go with the thinking of the power elite without actually realizing what you are doing and only in hindsight realizing how bad decisions have been done.

Just think about another example: Blair supporting Dubya's invasion of Iraq. How much applause and popularity did he get in hindsight for that? How crucial was it for the UK, really? The French passed that one and yes, Americans had their cry baby moment with "freedom fries" as a result... and forgot the whole thing later as they usually do.

And then when Obama wanted the UK to join a similar endeavour with bombing Syria, the UK did pass. Result: Obama didn't do anything, in fact he didn't start a war which he had promised. How worse did the relations got after that?

"Talented stars" in the political arena can make quite easily bad decisions they regret later. — ssu

Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.

It would be a violation of my prime directive to defend Cameron, but there's very little here to distinguish Cameron the machiavellian conspirator from Cameron the amoral advocate-whatever's-convenient smug incompetent. I do have a general principle, Occam's blunt penknife, that states that other things being equal, a cock-up is a better theory than a conspiracy - and a cock up a pig is certainly not evidence of cunning planning ability. — unenlightened

So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University genuinely believed he could reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - adding 'or vote me out' - and that it was merely a coincidence he found himself on the wrong side that pledge in the referendum that he provided for, and on which he failed deliver in spectacular fashion?

You're saying it's just coincidental incompetence that his Home Secretary Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory, who also cancelled the EU ID scheme six years before the referendum, sacked the longstanding head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clarke, allowed 660,000 immigrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the campaign period? It's similarly coincidental she then became Prime Minister pursuing brexit with an absolute determination, and was not criticized or sacked as Home Secretary for her spectacular failure on immigration, despite the fact Cameron had said tens of thousands 'or vote me out'?

You're saying that people were led to believe that UKIP forced Cameron into a referendum he didn't want - when the facts show, quite clearly that UKIP were nowhere until Cameron made that silly immigration pledge - and also that Cameron wanted a referendum for many years before, because... of smug incompetence or something?

I am generally in agreement with Hanlon's Razor, the aphorism being: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

But it's not adequately explained, and Cameron is not stupid. He had a first class degree in PPE from Oxford and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party like a rocket to the pinnacle of his profession - and you're saying he was a bumbling incompetent who fell out of the EU by accident?

If you look at the manifesto's and youtube video - they are evidence of clear premeditation of something he then actually did: call a referendum. He wasn't forced into by UKIP, because they were nowhere before Cameron, and because we vote in 650 constituencies - not nationally. UKIP's narrow policy platform may gain a lot of votes nationally, 11 million at the peak, but very rarely - a sufficient number in any one constituency. 11 million votes = 1 MP. And mostly Labour votes in the North. UKIP were never a threat to Cameron. So why have people been led to believe UKIP pressured Cameron into something he didn't want, that he clearly did want?

It's the fact he championed Remain in the referendum that is inconsistent with the facts. It just doesn't tally, and frankly - the cash for access scandal, proves his dishonesty. Would it be a surprise to find leading Leave campaign donors were among those who paid for access? Not to me!

Your claim makes more sense than most conspiracy theories; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it? — unenlightened

Yes, plenty. Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.

If you'll permit me to add my previous remarks here:

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.

p.s. to say nothing of the rumour released in 2015 alleging he once .... a dead pig's head!

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron did lie, I agree - obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

Thanks Dave! You alone decided we would have a referendum, that you made a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. You pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly. You tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they required treaty change. You appointed yourself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. You carried vast amounts of baggage with you into the referendum, baggage of your own creation - to give the people a say on a policy that's either pointless or catastrophic. Thank you very pigging much!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o

If your research is supported by public funding, does it not seem the results should be available to the public? — prothero

Sounds reasonable. In relation to my suggestion that ideas* should be licensed and not confer exclusive rights to manufacture, marketing and distribution - would not researchers want their ideas to be open source - in order to sell licenses to produce?

*Not actually ideas, but a composition, production process, machine, tool, new plant species, etc.

How about formally produced knowledge disappearing behind the very high priced wall of academic journals? Journals didn't pay for the research to be done, they don't pay the salaries of the researchers, they don't support the universities, so really... what good are they? It seems like a few publishers control a lot of the journals - like Elsevier. — Bitter Crank

Is there not an editorial standard worth paying for?

Interesting side note - someone created a post modernist essay generator program, and produced entirely meaningless essays from random words set in a grammatical and syntactic structure (I presume.) The essays were published by the journal. Unsubscribe.

But arguably, is not the expertise required to understand, edit and publish worthwhile articles a skill and deserving of remuneration? Whether it's too high a price, I can't say. Would there not be a fairly limited readership? Lots of questions - when I could have just said, I don't know.

I don't think there is anything unjust about direct sales between creators and consumers of art work (music, writing, etc.) One could argue (it has been argued) that the present system exploits the author and reader by the printer. The direct sale (author to reader) might be more just; it might also be less efficient because it is too decentralized.

Books don't just sell themselves. Cover art work, recommendations, ratings, blurbs, and so forth all help get the book sold. Marketing books is a legitimate business activity (it's not merely a ripoff) and it helps move the product. Some form of marketing will be done, or most books will never find enough customers to keep the author from starving. — Bitter Crank

My thought was about things like video games, movies and music - which are now so easily reproducible, and available online that the industries are being decimated. Consider CEX - the second hand store, and how there's one primary purchase that benefits the creative talent, then a long line of other sales of the same physical object - at as close to market price as they can get away with, that are of no benefit to the creative talent, and indeed, deny them would be customers. It sucks! Then think about youtube - and the endless amount of music freely available. And movies, and the work of comedians, and so on and on.

All this goes back in turn, to Tim Berners Lee's ostensibly magnanimous gesture - where he gave away his invention - making it freely available. And it's used very freely indeed. Consider the dark web, endless amounts of gratuitous pornography, the dark web selling stolen visas cards, drugs and goodness knows what else.

Individual internet ID is less than ideal - sure, but it's got to be better than all of human knowledge dissolving into the infinite landscape of an open internet.

I can not make any sense of the concept being put forward here (help anyone). — prothero

The OP is a defense of metaphysics before epistemology. Heidegger was obsessed with 'being' - and considered it a fundamental concept. I don't. I think truth is fundamental. Hence my rebuttal of the idea that 'existence is everywhere' with reference to scientific facts. This example shows clearly how metaphysics is merely parsing language, and not reality.

I thought atoms were mostly empty space, and that 96% of the universe was missing.

The idea can be patented, but the manufacture, marketing and distribution cannot
— karl stone

I really don't know much about patents, but practice is the reverse, isn't it? -- you can't patent an idea (like toasting bread) but you can patent a novel toaster (it copies DVDs, it makes toast, it hops off the counter to vacuum the floor, and it recycles pet hair into dental floss). — Bitter Crank

Sure. I wasn't suggesting a change to the established doctrine on what can be patented:

"An invention can be patented if it has a useful purpose, has patentable subject matter, is novel, and is non-obvious. The patent could cover a composition, production process, machine, tool, new plant species, or an upgrade to an existing invention. Inventors must meet certain government guidelines to get a patent."

I could not patent the idea of individual internet ID's for example - unless there were some unique coding mechanism, or other such feature. But given that qualification, the argument remains the same. My principle concern is with the justice of the overall arrangement.

In 1994, Berners-Lee founded the W3C at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It comprised various companies that were willing to create standards and recommendations to improve the quality of the Web. Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due. The World Wide Web Consortium decided that its standards should be based on royalty-free technology, so that they easily could be adopted by anyone.

"Worst idea ever!"
(Comic Book Guy. The Simpsons.)

Okay, I think I know what I think, and I'd like for you to criticize these ideas. If you can. Or just tell me how right I am.

It occurred to me that the trademark question is unambiguous. Trading under someone else's name is fraud, as simple as that.

That so, if we apply it to the copyright question - what if everyone had their own internet ID? The only way to access the internet was via your own ID - and all forms of media were available online, and only online, and were charged directly to your account. That would imply that all sales were primary sales, that returned revenues to media producers - enabling them to produce better quality media at lower prices to consumers.

The other issue is patents - and there I think my instinct is correct. The idea can be patented, but the manufacture, marketing and distribution cannot. Anyone using the idea should pay the person who registers the patent, to license the idea. My reasoning is that, this is a question of rights - and while it is consistent with natural justice, and natural rights - that I get paid for my idea, it's not consistent with natural justice that my rights as inventor, inhibit everyone else's freedom in the whole wide world.

It's the cat's eye guy solution. I think it promotes a meritocracy of ideas negotiated through the market - rather than a system where, Dragons take 99% for 99 cents from some struggling inventor, and take the lion's share of the profit for doing nothing more than plug the idea into pre-exiting production, marketing and distribution chains - or, if the inventor won't sell, deny access to those chains.

So this is my reasoning - take it apart if you can.

A very interesting post, thank you. I should probably work up a list of questions, but at this stage I'm still struggling with the idea. Your practical experience is ample evidence that the question is a complicated one. I'm going to read and think about it some more. But great post. Thanks again.

What an interesting discussion you've been having since I've been gone. Quick, now babble until we're on page 18:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

and:


Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.

You've had my expert advice - for free! Take it or leave it. I'll leave you to it.