You, DDeBar, wrote:

>> So, to me this piece amounts to the argument that people got around
>> without cars at one time, and there was less air pollution (and NO drunk
>> drivers), so we'd be better off bringing back the horse and buggy.
>> Amusing, but not very persuasive.
>
>Actually, I interpret it to mean that, since we once used a means of
>transportation (horse and buggy) that did not burn fossil fuel, obviously
>it is possible to devise a means of transportation that does not require
>fossil fuel, no more and no less.
And I would be happy to hear what that new (post-IP) "technology" would
look like. But so far, no one has offered any hint of how it would work.
All "Myths" does is set up strawmen and knock them down. It doesn't begin
to argue the merits of its own case. It's an easy matter to demonstrate
that, without, say, copyright protection, the publishing industry as we
know it would cease to exist. Why on earth, then, would a majority of
people agree to toss out protection of intellectual property without
clear and convincing argument that what would replace it would represent
an improvement?

_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press.
Every time I hear those words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red, that
man is a Communist.'  You never heard a real American talk in that
manner." -- Frank Hague (1876-1956), U.S. politician.