C4SS.org | In the normal course of affairs, when we consume services offered on the market, we expect only to get the services we ask for, and to pay for just what we get. If we don’t want the service a business is providing, we don’t have to consume it or pay for it. And if someone else offers a superior version of the service on terms that we prefer, we can take our business elsewhere.
Mid-2004 interview with Marc Stevens, author of "Adventures in Legal Land", and host of "The No State Project" (a weekly radio show discussing news and issues related to the law, courts, and personal liberty, with a particular interest in considering free-market alternatives to government-provided services). Marc's perspective is that the very concept of government is based on numerous dishonest and misleading labels and presumptions that amount to a complex public relations scheme.
CAFR1.com | On 06/12/2010 Wikipedia through a rep with the user name "Sandstein" deleted the BIO of Walter Burien from Wikipedia. A BIO is a detailed and accurate depiction of who someone is, where they lived, worked, and what they have done throughout their life. Walters BIO that has been on Wikipedia for the last seven years was just that and proof edited by himself for accuracy and verifiable through many different sources. Why did Wikipedia delete this BIO at this time? Reading the BIO of this man will explain well enough and comprehension is on the rise.
TechDirt.com | Could you make the argument that by restricting the use of certain resources and restricting freedom of expression, those laws lead to unethical limitations? Put another way, if intellectual property is causing actual harm, then you could make the claim that there is a moral issue in discussing them -- in that the laws of intellectual property, by themselves, are immoral. That is, if taking away IP causes no direct harm, then there's no moral issue to discuss. But, if leaving them in place does cause harm, then that is a moral issue worth considering.
