Monopoly on freedom
I believe few areas warrants a monopoly and only areas subject to democracy could be candidates.
The military, the police and the court systems are monopolies for good reasons. They are also an agent of democracy.
Monopolies outside of the realm of democracy is bad news. Like in the private sector… or in religion.
I did a 2 year study on the patent system and came to the conclusion that it should be abolished. Then I did a 2 year stint on copyright and arrived at the same conclusion. I am advocating the abolishment of copyright altogether. Intellectual property is a misnomer and can not be compared to real property. If I take your bicycle then I have it and you don’t. If I make a copy of your book, we both have a copy. Physical objects gets worn by use. Ideas multiply by use. I am an advocate of Trade Marks and of Credit Rights. These concepts limits forgeries and thereby enhances the consumers rights and protection. For a very good dissertation on these subjects, read Against intellectual monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine.
What about a monopoly on freedom? That is as bad as it gets. Presuming that Scientology is the real road to freedom, it borders on the absurd to grant one entity a monopoly on its use. Why? Because the monopoly can be corrupted and then nobody goes free.
Knowledge should be free to use for anyone. This is the way of the ant hill innovation. This is the way science and culture have been since before the stone age. Human progress is marked by incremental innovation where the next innovator builds upon what the previous made possible. Isaac Newton once said “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”.
Prominent modern day examples of ant hill innovation are the free software movement and Wikipedia. The latter may very well be the fastest world-wide revolution in the history of mankind. The biggest reason being the low threshold for contribution. The easier it is to contribute to a popular cause, the more traction it gets.
As Scientology is intended to set people free, the technology itself should be free. I can hear readers object to this with reference to the policy letter Keeping Scientology Working and to the purpose of the Religious Technology Center. But I believe it is the only way to keep it secured. Add a certification body like in most mature industries, and we could have a truly workable system. The shipping industry is very competitive. It has certification bodies giving credibility to the market players. A certification in Scientology shouldn’t be mandatory. Those who would want the credibility would opt for the certification. Customers could freely choose where to get services.
This may be seen as radical, especially if you have been subjected to grooming & conditioning by the church, because in most other areas, this is the natural way.
In my blog post “LRH4ALL” I proposed that L. Ron Hubbards public works should be freely distributed on the Internet. This would be automatic if copyrights were abandoned. Authenticity would be assured with Credit Rights. LRH’s works should be published in its original form, unaltered. Any changes or additions would have to be branded with a different Trade Mark. Anyone would be free to expand upon the technology and use it freely. This could expand its use into many new areas.
The ultimate purpose should be to help others achieve more integrity and personal freedom. This can be better achieved than in the current Church of Scientology. Give the control back to the individual. Freedom includes the power of choice.
Note (from answering comments to this post): I do not think it is a viable endeavor to try to change copyright laws directly. I believe technology will render the laws ineffective and that the laws will need to change in order to reflect reality.