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.

starset

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.

Advertisements
  1. RJ
    2009-10-03 at 22:21

    Most of the stuff you say I agree with but the buck stops on this thing regarding “intellectual property”. As a writer thats how I make a buck, which in reality is just a few cents of that buck since most of goes to agents, publishers, marketing etc.

    To me the concept is very straight forward and is covered under exchange of a valuable service or product to gain the wherewithal to produce more of the same. Once you start giving it away you eliminate the incentive that distinguishes literature from mere “content”. This applies to any art form.

    If someone wants to give their life’s labor away, frankly I’d be the last person to stop them but that should be the decision of the copyright owner not some ominous group on the internet who disdains intellectual property rights.

    As far as Scientology is concerned. It has been proven pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt that the current organization currently holding them is not deserving of that trust since they have failed to present Scientology in its pure unadulterated form.

    In fact, strange as it may seem the only place you can actually find pure unadulterated Scientology is on the internet or in a used book store! You definitely can’t find it in a “Church of Scientology” these days!

    • 2009-10-03 at 22:41

      I knew these objections would come. I have one advice: Read the book “Against Intellectual Monopoly”. Me debating the points here will simply be redundancy and a shoddy substitute for the readers to get through that book 😉

    • 2009-10-08 at 07:07

      This is some deep stufff!!

  2. Maria
    2009-10-03 at 23:38

    In my opinion, the authors of the materials “Against Intellectual Monopoly” have a very poor grasp of the difference between a discrete published work written, crafted, performed or created by a specific author/artist/musician and an idea. You cannot really copyright an idea, per se. You can copyright the specific written, crafted, created, performed work that incorporates the idea. It has specific and unique value beyond the idea. Intellectual property law already makes provision for licensing and distributing copyrighted materials for free or for fee. It also makes provision for fully transferring copyright for fee That is what publishers already do.

    I consider the stance that any work created by an artist, musician, photographer, writer should be instantly placed in the public domain to be out and out theft of that individual’s work. There is nothing preventing someone from utilizing the underlying idea of their work once they are published, and that happens very, very often — think of all the Mariah Carey clones or Led Zeppelin clones — as opposed to copying the actual work and denying the person who did the work the fruits of their own labor, years of building up their expertise, years of study and research, and so on. There is absolutely NO incentive to learn one’s trade or craft under such a system.

    I would never support such a thing. I know and respect the works of far too many artists, musicians and writers to even suggest that they have the fruits of their labors just taken from them like that. Some work for decades to create one truly fantastic piece of work — what is wrong with them being rewarded for that? It is not criminal or offensive for them to be compensated, even handsomely and hugely compensated.

    As far as the works of Scientology goes, I don’t know what to say. I do know that I have worked with electronic document systems and it is almost impossible to protect their integrity. I myself have had my electronic works stolen, altered and reissued under another person’s name, all done before I was even aware that it had occurred. It was done by an individual in another country entirely and there was no easy method of handling the problem. I do not want to see the works of L. Ron Hubbard go down that road and it wouldn’t be long before they did.

    • 2009-10-03 at 23:43

      On the last part of your post: You do not need Copyrights to address that issue. You need Credit Rights to secure authenticity.

      On the other objections: Did you actually read the book?

  3. TH
    2009-10-03 at 23:44

    Do you see the vision presented in this post as being compatible with some materials being confidential? Does not the confidentially of some material inherently grant the entity that holds those materials a monopoly on their use? What if that monopoly gets corrupted and then no honest people get access?

    Also, how is it possible for open cooperative incremental ant hill type innovation to occur if access to, and the discussion of, certain information is prohibited (or restricted to a chosen few)? Is that not the antithesis of the open-source model you are advocating?

    • 2009-10-03 at 23:49

      I am not denying that you have a point.

  4. rebel008
    2009-10-04 at 01:01

    One unfortunate result of current copyright law as regards the Church of Scientology is that in order to prevent LRH’s works from falling into public domain, they have to substantially alter the text, and then apply for a new copyright. This may be the real reason behind all the changes to the basic books. In this case, it is detrimental to the original work.

  5. 2009-10-04 at 01:49

    Guys, CreativeCommons.Org is answering a lot of issues that you bring up by default by completely redefining copyright law in a way-cool system.

    It is causing AMAZING collaboration! People are making songs, plays, books and the growth is expanding as you describe.

    It’s a new way to copyright and allows for creators to tier their copyrights and distribute different aspects of rights assigned to a property so that people don’t have to ask permission to use a created work and know exactly what they can or cannot do with it.

    For people who make a living from their works, a person can have a “founder’s copyright” that protects the work for a person’s life and then goes into public domain after their death.

    You can have a “credit copyright” that allows anyone to use the material as long as they give you credit. Or you can have an “open source” designation.

    It’s pretty cool.

    • 2009-10-04 at 10:22

      I know CC well. It is a way to use the current copyright system to cancel various parts of its most undesired effects. Another very good way of encourage ant hill creativity and sharing is the Genero project.

      Ultimately I believe technology will relegate copyright law into an anachronism.

  6. Maria
    2009-10-04 at 05:41

    Yes I did read the work, and other works pro and con as well. I am not sure that I agree with the historical analysis on the arts, all too many of the great artists of the past died in abject poverty. A great many of them were court supported (and censured) with the advantage that they were completely free to spend all their time creating their works. The weakness I see in the arguments put forth is that many an artist has no business/marketing savvy whatsoever and really needs protections.

    This whole subject is a real can of worms. Practically speaking, changing these laws, at least in the U.S. has heavy consequences, opening the judicial branch to torts from here to kingdom come. Attempting to legislate all this appears to me to be an impossible task, especially in a more and more global arena. So many countries to align! More likely, over time artistic types will find their own value in releasing their works utilizing some of the principles suggested by the proponents of open source / open copyright.

    It’s a brave new world…

    • 2009-10-04 at 10:32

      Yes, it is a can of worms and I would not advocate any overnight changes. In fact I do not think it is a viable endeavor to try changing the laws. I believe technology will do this anyway. Technology will ultimately cancel copyright laws – it is in fact effectively corroding it already; Napster, Pirate Bay, more torrent sites etc.

    • 2013-02-02 at 15:35

      Maria: This whole subject is a real can of worms.

      Chris: Yes, made so by our learned sense of exchange underpinned by this world’s corrupt money and banking organizations. Our sense that there must be a Utopia possible will have to be realized by small steps, then time for rebalancing of the culture, then more steps.

      I see both sides of this argument. The resulting scale of administration to achieve the optimum results for these Utopian goals seems ENORMOUS.

  7. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-04 at 07:20

    Is that freedom, to know something which you cannot tell?
    The confidential materials have now been in public domain for 2 decades, did that make public less free?

    • 2009-10-04 at 10:36

      I am debating this with myself these days…

  8. 2009-10-04 at 08:32

    No matter what there will still need to be a COS to ensure the data is pure LRH as verified against his writings. KSW. It would need to be transparent. The public would need to know who was there and that they were doing the job correctly. So you are back to policy.

    • 2009-10-04 at 10:37

      And that organization could very well be a certification body for tech delivery orgganizations and groups (and individuals).

      • Been There
        2009-10-04 at 10:47

        If you listen to the old tapes the COS did that for the auditors in the field. We need to get back to that. I don’t have a disagreement with the materials being free for access to everyone per their case level. This would be okay. If the organization needed the funding for the servers and connection to allow acess they could charge a monthly or yearly small fee.

        • 2009-10-04 at 10:51

          If that organization ran the certification for other delivery units, they would fund server hosting etc. through certification fees. There is lots of viable business cases down that alley.

  9. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-04 at 09:27

    Geir,

    This blog is important and what you do is very important. Howevever, I have to disagree with you on the “intellectual property” issues and abandon of copyright.

    It is true that nobody looses anything if a text is copied. Therefore, copying texts, music or films is NOT stealing. But the creator experience a loss of income from his work. That is ususally forgotten.

    I have extensivly covered ths subject of filesharing on my blogg: (Swedish)
    http://hubbardianen.wordpress.com/fildelning/

    To be fair, I’m not a hardcore, fanatic believer against “filesharing” etc, but I believe that inventors, creators, writers etc should have their share of the money. Mostly the big companies make the money.

    If somebody wants something, they should pay for it (unless the creator says otherwise). The basics of economy.

    I do firmly believe in intellectual copyright laws. It would be unfair if writers, filmmakers, songwriters, inventors etc were taken away their way of making money, while others have the right to charge people for their services.

    So from a user point of view, an abandonment of copyright is no harm. But from a creator point of view, an abandonment creates great many problems. Eight dynamics, right?

    • 2009-10-04 at 10:34

      In a technology world, the end product of policing copyright law is a totalitarian state. I believe that to be a bigger problem than finding new business models for creator (and that includes myself).

  10. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-04 at 11:53

    It’s interesting to debate copyright etc since I also can see the “other” side and their points. Of course there are good points to abolish copyright etc, but I think the negative issues overweight the positive issues and my main point to that is Moral.

    However, I think the basic factor is Time. People have spent time to develop books, music, software, inventions etc. They should get paid for that. Then the “other side” can claim: Ok, let’s pay the Creator £200/hour for his work and everybody is happy, while I claim “let’s pay him for every immaterial piece he sells”.

    Why? Because why should someone creating a refridgerator get paid a piece and not a musician? Sure, the refridge-creator has unique costs for every piece unlike a piece of music consisting of a digital file, but the refridge-creator makes a PROFIT for every piece also. Why shouldn’t a musician make a PROFIT for every piece? Who says artists should work for free? The filsharers? It’s called show-business, not show-show. If Metallica sells 1 000 000 pieces of music I believe they should get paid more than somebody selling 10 pieces of music. I’m so tired of all the big corporate money guys making all the money and the creator getting much less.

    Anyway, this could be debated endlessly. 🙂

    • 2009-10-04 at 11:56

      It could. Read the book. Or compare with the free software movement where people earn lots of money while creating free software.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-04 at 12:07

        Absolutely. But perhaps not everybody wants to create free software? I don’t think it’s right to assume that everybody wants to work that way. It’s an individual choice.

        The market will decide anyway and surely, new business models will develop.

  11. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-04 at 12:02

    And regarding the totalitarian state on the internet I personally have nothing against it. If there’s nothing to hide what’s to worry about? I think it rather advances the possibility to solve crimes etc… I personally wouldn’t send “personal integrity stuff” on the internet, the main objection for the people against “totalitarian” internet.

    I think some kind of laws on the internet is a must, mainly because of innocent people getting badmouthed etc.

    • 2009-10-04 at 12:14

      Oh-oh. You wouldn’t mind George Orwell’s 1984, V for Vendetta or Minority Report type of society? Even if you have nothing to hide, a totalitarian state would be the end of freedom.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-04 at 13:58

        When I mentioned “totalitarian”, I was talking about the internet, not the real world. I’m not looking for every step to be under surveillance.

        It’s a hard balance to find a sensible level between “personal integrity” and “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” regarding the internet. Terrorists and murderers have been caught due to the surveillance over the internet etc.

        On the other hand, ethical people wants to be able to have their freedom from governments.

  12. TH
    2009-10-04 at 12:24

    Geir,

    What are your thoughts on the ethics of filesharing? Is it ethical to use bittorrent to download anything that is available even if the government and the creator consider it copyrighted? Is there a higher ethic at work that transcends the law?

    • 2009-10-04 at 12:41

      Whereas I would never advocate breaking any law, I do recognize the power of file sharing technology to render copyright law obsolete. I would encourage creative people to freely share their work for the greater good. And also because what goes around comes around. LRH wrote “Outflow is holier, more moral, more remunerative and more effective than inflow.” He also said “The work was free, keep it so“. I share my work of art – to give back to everyone who inspired me in my creativity (and that is a lot of people). I hope to see more sharing in the future – of ideas, of work, of files.

      I may be partly dodging your question, but this is what I have for you at the moment.

      • TH
        2009-10-04 at 13:21

        Fair enough. It is a tough question 🙂 I would point out that the power of file sharing technology to render copyright law obsolete is predicated on the willingness of some people to break copyright law. If everyone took the view that filesharing is a good thing in the abstract but will not personally download files if they are copyrighted, then the power of the technology to force a change in the copyright laws is null and void.

        On the other hand, if an ultimate change in the copyright laws instigated by filesharing technology occurs and is a good thing, can the actions of all the filesharers that made this possible be unethical? Can millions of people acting unethically result in an ultimate good? If not, maybe their actions were not unethical.

        • 2009-10-04 at 13:41

          Now this is an interesting viewpoint, adding to the debate. Thank you.

          I believe we are not talking about ethics here, but rather about morals. I would make a parallel to a country with a counter-productive law (there are many examples of this in e.g. modern China). Many people acting for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics and against the laws/morals of the country could result in a positive ethical change to the detriment of the moral code. Copyright law is the current moral. I believe the laws are unethical as it dampens innovation and ultimately works against the greater good. The artists concern for his own income and inability to think of better business cases (and there are many) is no match for the traction that innovation gets in a world of free sharing.

          • TH
            2009-10-04 at 14:21

            That’s a good way to look at Geir. Moral codes are based on agreement. Ethics is based on higher principles and is not dependent on agreement. One of the higher principles could be that certain deference be given to existing moral codes even if they are not ideal in the interest of an orderly society. But that deference is not absolute and sometimes following a higher ethical principle that is in conflict with existing moral codes is necessary to bring about reform of those moral codes so those codes more closely reflect higher ethical principles.

            • 2009-10-04 at 14:26

              Spot on. Impressive. Send me an e-mail. We need to hook up.

  13. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-04 at 14:24

    Geir,

    1. For example, if one man works thirty years full time and invents a unique idea that many people wants to buy (e.g. a one man space shuttle completely safe running on water for $10 000), your opinion is that anybody should just be able to copy that idea immediately for free and sell it on the market?

    Greatest good for greatest number of dynamics. Yes, but not with too much sacrifice for an individual.

    This question is highly hypothetical. 🙂 For example, if one man could take over other peoples diseases and still live, do you think the government should force that man to do that? 1 000 people could be cured of cancer, AIDS, lepra etc, but all of that pain and disease would be taken over by that one individual and he would feel it. It would be the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics (GGftGnoD).

    I personally believe the GGftGnoD cannot sacrifice one individual too much. There should be a minimum level of quality living for every individual before the GGftGnoD is taken into account.

    Just some thoughts.

  14. Maria
    2009-10-04 at 15:09

    What happened to protecting the rights of an individual? Are artists rights simply taken from them because their work is highly beneficial, beautiful or very much wanted? Sorry, I just can’t think with this. It would be a curse to be an artist. Far better to be a shoemaker. As far as protecting individual rights to their own creations stifling creativity I think this is nonsense. The 20th century, even with its “draconian” copyright laws, was an EXPLOSION of creativity and innovation. There’s no slow-down in the 21st century, there’s an acceleration. The world has never seen anything like it before.

    I often hear about democracy on the web. For the record, the U.S. is NOT a democracy, it is a republic governed by constitution and law, first and foremost. Those laws were created to protect individuals from majority rule and mob action, which is democracy. Under majority rule in the United States there would be no other religion at all than Christianity, for majority would rule. Have a care what you wish for.

    As far as open source technology goes, most of these projects were collaborations from the beginning. They were not the work of a single individual and they were not intended to be the work of a single individual. This is also true of the corporations. The difference with them is that their projects are work-for-hire collaborations to which the corporation owns the copyrights. Corporations don’t die and that’s probably the real crux of the matter. Should corporations, which can live forever, enjoy the rights of individuals?

    Regardless of what technology does, regardless of morals and ethics, the copyrights will expire on the original works of L. Ron Hubbard throughout the next 50-60 years and a means of assuring their authenticity will have to be established. I sure hope our technology boys and girls can find a way to handle the authenticity problems in the next few decades.

    • 2009-10-04 at 17:34

      Maria, Keep It Short. Please. Keep the yellow card as a reminder.

      As for content. Nearly all innovation has been incremental, with lots of artists lost in one person’s fame. Times will change. Ant Hill innovation is the future – witness Wikipedia. Copyright is a lost cause by all practical means.

      • Anonymous
        2009-10-13 at 15:00

        Dear Geir, so what is the price I can get for a book I’ve spent a year for writing or which is 120 pages in volume or what can be the basic measure and what can I get for it if I made 5 years study and sacrificed 5000 USD for costs of research?

        • 2009-10-13 at 18:03

          I don’t know. Is it any good?

          Read this book and get back to me.

  15. Anonymous
    2009-10-04 at 15:44

    What lies at the root of copyright law is the commerce/economic/recognition aspects of the human experience. The adage, you can’t be human and be right comes to mind. Human bodies tend to inhibit with demands for food and shelter. Beyond those needs lies the larger scales of havingness and the lower scales of greed and entrapment by the physical (Four Noble Truths et al).

    So one ends up with this somewhat absurd situation where the means to freedom from that dilemma, being human and being at a theta level, right, is trammeled by the needs for lucre so the means to freedom from the human condition can be maintained, for the human bodies. I

    Having to fit in the aims of Scientology into the economics of the situation is the problem. It’s the same problem LRH sought to deal with and we face it today.

    There are new models of cooperative action among beings, that is, organization, emerging from very bright beings coming up to deliver the purity of the subject of Scientology broadly which will in the end obviate the lower scale aspects of being human and rapacious for physical satisfaction. As long as in the interim the subject can be delivered and those delivering it, while maintaining the physical needs/wants, can survive to do so, then in this particular case of true spiritual freedom, a freer paradigm is closer to the Ideal Scene.

    LRH invoked copyright to ensure purity for one and the means to deliver for another. Those are the two issues. However they can be positively dealt with is well within KSW.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-04 at 23:12

      This post was supposed to be in my name. I got a new computer and the name wasn`t put on the post. Jim Logan

  16. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-04 at 17:18

    Hubbardianen :
    …I personally have nothing against it. If there’s nothing to hide what’s to worry about?…

    Best come-back to this I’ve seen: “Then you would not object if the state came and removed the doors on your bathrooms?”

    A difference between “secrecy” and “privacy”? 😉

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-10-04 at 21:45

      You’re right. There’s a difference between those two, and that’s the main issue of the debate. However, I don’t put pictures up on the internet when I do number two in my bathroom. 😉

      Also, that was my personal view on the internet. I realize there’s something called democracy where everybody should have their say. Another point is that since there’s so much virus, trojans and worms out there, even IF internet is not monitored I wouldn’t put anything up I considered secret, personal or similair I wouldn’t want to share with the rest of the world. And since I wouldn’t do that anyway, I might as well go with the idea to monitor the internet for the purpose of diminshing crimes, badmouthing etc.

      The world is insanely globalized, just look at Letterman and his sex affairs. Most of the Western world knows about it due to newspapers etc… so “what’s hidden in the dark will always come out in the light” is my personal philosophy.

      • 2009-10-04 at 21:51

        Even though you would not put pictures of yourself on the internet, others could – like surveillance cameras along the roads etc. Massive government surveillance of the internet would not only be an invasion of the Internet, it would end in a totalitarian state. Witness London – heading for a V for Vendetta scenario perhaps faster than many states we call totalitarian today.

        • Hubbardianen
          2009-10-05 at 07:58

          Exactly. And that’s why surveillance camera pictures on the internet should be able to be removed by law by government.

          Remember though, I’m talking about internet now… not real life. That’s another debate regarding the public cameras, DNA-records, iris-records, registers of your opinions etc.

          I’m curious though Geir, IF we had total surveillence of internet, lots of public cameras etc. How do you vision that totalitarian state to be used against the public? How could it be used in a bad way? Or are you merely fighting for the right to privacy?

          • 2009-10-05 at 15:44

            It would lead to a totalitarian state as most transactions would go through the Internet in the very near future – your bank transactions, your purchases, your presence (GPS etc.). The line between the Internet and the physical society is blurring.

  17. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-04 at 17:26

    Geir, first of all, I don’t mind if someone gets the copyright to an intellectual work for a limited number of years before it passed into the public domain. Not really workable, I know, because I can buy a very recent novel in the thrift-shop, and whoops! System broken already.

    Anyway, I once saw a website that sold downloads of original music, with a certain percentage of the revenues going to the artists.

    Pricing was based upon popularity. As a song climbed “the charts”, price rose also.

    Don’t know how that all turned out, but I just thought I’d mention it.

  18. Maria
    2009-10-04 at 19:44

    Geir, sorry about the length of my last comment! My excuse is that I’ve had my attention on this stuff for a long time and no where to say it that would even be remotely beneficial or useful. 🙂

  19. TH
    2009-10-04 at 20:06

    This may be too far off topic, but since this thread has gotten into issues of ethics, I have been recently been watching an online class produced by Harvard University on issues of ethics and justice. For anyone who is interested the class lecture/discussions are available at: http://www.justiceharvard.org/. The first 3 classes (of 12) are available for viewing with a new one added each week.

    For anyone who has the time and interest to watch some of the classes (they are an hour each), does Hubbard’s idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics provide a resolution for some of the ethical dilemmas presented in the class or is it simply a variation on utilitarian philosophy with all the problems and objections typically raised to utilitarianism?

    • ExKane
      2009-10-05 at 00:55

      I’m no expert but I too have always thought of all the problems with utilitarianism whenever I come across this “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.”

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-05 at 08:03

        The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics is a good idea, as long as one understands that there must be a minimal level of standard for each individual.

        The way I see it, it does not mean “sacrifice the individual in favour of the group to any extent”. It means “sacrifice the individual in favour for the group to some extent”.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-05 at 02:17

      TH,
      The use of infinity valued-logic and the determination of the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics are not just re-worked ‘utilitarianism’. Scientology ethics includes the definition of a Static and an entirely new view of age old issues with that. Bentham and later Mill, certainly were bright minds on the scene of knowledge and have contributed much to the ken of man.

  20. StarsAwait
    2009-10-05 at 00:24

    The “What is greatness” video on scientology dot org has had quite a good effect on Scientology’s PR. I’ve observed two examples where people seem to have a better opinion of Scientology because of this video. But even better, they’ve learned something about life.

    There’s lots of quotes like this from LRH which should be distributed widely on the internet.

    Yet in my view Miscavige puts out this ambiguous overarching aura of threat against Scientologists putting LRH quotes on their facebook pages etc. Copyright and trademark infingement clauses scare Scientologists off from just posting some LRH quotes somewhere.

    RTC should make clear to Scientologists that LRH non-confidential writings are allowed to be posted, up to a certain character length. Any typos or misquotes would be policed by RTC and if it becomes a pattern with any one individual, RTC can bring them to court or send them to ethics.

    This situation as it stands now allows for only the bad guys to post LRH quotes on the web, and the good guys aren’t supposed to post anything without writing RTC first for permission, unless I’m mistaken. See? I don’t even know where it stands.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-05 at 14:26

      Stars,
      US copyright law allows for ‘fair use’ of materials. That law is applied to us on the ‘outside’. It’s hard to imagine a Scientologist on the ‘inside’ can’t disseminate straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak, with LRH materials. DM has cut the line for the source of the subject to the individual. He’s inserted himself on it.

      This whole thing started with individuals making copies of the orginal thesis of the work and passing it around.

  21. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-05 at 06:30

    Soderqvist1: L. Ron Hubbard has refined utilitarianism in such a way that said ‘problems’ and ‘objection’ doesn’t arise, but the church has deviated from his original writings and instead uses utilitarian ‘the greatest good for the church at the individuals expense’, and thus problems and objection has arisen! Read my reply here, and tell me if Hubbard’s original writing has solved it, or not?
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=229477&postcount=37

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-05 at 17:25

      Soder,
      Thanks for that link. Wonderful post it is too!

  22. Cinnamon
    2009-10-05 at 08:05

    I like your photo in this post.

    • 2009-10-05 at 15:45

      It’s not a photo. I made the picture.

      • Cinnamon
        2009-10-06 at 00:18

        I found the picture to be comforting, whereas this blog post was a bit discomfitting to me, at first.

        • 2009-10-06 at 05:49

          I know. I’m not beating around the bush – and that may shake some stable data.

  23. Anon
    2009-10-05 at 12:44

    How do you like this?
    (link to an awesome number of LRH lectures, indexed and downloadable – linked removed due to reference to confidential material)

    • 2009-10-05 at 15:47

      It is awesome (but I had to remove the link to comply with my blog rules).

  24. StarsAwait
    2009-10-06 at 06:06

    Good point on Original Thesis Jim, I hadn’t thought about that.

  25. StarsAwait
    2009-10-06 at 06:14

    Geir maybe a pilot program of what you’re thinking could be run using a lesser known language to contain it’s effects, and get a good picture of what happens when this is done. ie. do it in Norway.

    Courses and lectures and everything on the internet except confidential materials. Maybe now isn’t the time to propose this to RTC, but you do have a comm line through them via OSA. And no matter what they say, they know you’re well intentioned and would trust you to run it.

    • 2009-10-06 at 07:09

      I don’t believe that I am on RTC’s list of favorites 😉

      As for a pilot project on this, there is already several running. One group in particular; One with very highly trained OTs are delivering the whole bridge up and including Solo Nots and the old OT levels as well. This unit is well equipped to handle all types of cases on all levels.

  26. StarsAwait
    2009-10-07 at 06:31

    Thanks Geir I’ll ask you more about that group later that sounds hopeful.

  27. 2009-10-26 at 14:38

    “One quality that has always set us apart is that we are unselfish. Yes, WE HAVE an utter MONOPOLY on workable solutions, but we share those solutions with anyone who reaches for them…” David Miscavige – Nightline ‘Inside Scientology’ (4′:48″)

    He forgot to add ” …for a price”, “… for complete control of people’s lives”.

    “I do not believe that the trade marks or service marks of Scientology(tm) would stand thorough judicial inspection and I think that there is an obvious incompatibility with the concept of religion and commercialism. Scientology(tm)’s copyrights or at least some of them have been questioned and should be questioned” David Mayo

  28. Jeff
    2009-11-03 at 17:22

    This comment is waaay late here but I just read this. There is a certification system in the indie field already although it is kind of rag tag right now. It’ll get better in time I’m sure.

    There are two ways to solve these kinds of problems. One is coming up with creative voluntary ways such as the certification idea. The other way is to say “we’ll just force people to do it this way” (i.e. the non-voluntary monopolistic way). Whenever someone advocates the latter, it should immediately be suspect and when someone comes up with a creative voluntary alternative, it should not be ignored.

    Just as an example, nearly everyone approves of police monopolies. If a voluntary alternative is suggested (and some compelling ideas have come about in recent years) one type of person will automatically discount it and refuse to look at all even if it’s right before their eyes because they are biased towards non-voluntary monopolistic solutions while the other type of person will listen carefully and hope that there really is a viable voluntary alternative.

    With the extreme amount of non-voluntary schemes in use today, we could all stand to be a little more biased towards modern voluntary cooperation rather than the ancient big stick approach.

  29. 2013-02-02 at 16:12

    I read you post and you have my agreement…and I too believe the tech-knowledge should have been given freely…and those auditors who’s hourly fees are $ 200.00 less or more..whos foot steps they are fallowing? not mine.. I dont chage for the help I give..

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: