License:
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

Not AI Generated! See Proof

Audio Version

by Blender Dumbass

Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".

Recently on an interview with Cory Doctorow on the FiresideFedi Show I was perplexed to suddenly feel like I don't understand "consent".

He was talking about the difference in his mind between the left and the right. And that asking a simple question can answer which side the person is on. The question you need to ask is: What is more important, property rights or human rights? And if the answer is "property rights are human rights" the person is on the right. Making a case that not every-time owning something is a good idea. That sometimes owning something is bad for the rest of the people.

The context of this question was copyright and digital shackles. In which case if you believe in the idea that somebody can own ideas owning something isn't particularly good. And another example that Cory gave was houses. If there are a lot of homeless people, and a lot of owned, but empty, houses, that is not fair not to use those houses to house the homeless people.

Yet in the same light, very important movements like the right to repair, argue from the very perspective of ownership. If you buy a device and you don't have full control over that device, your human rights are essentially violated. In a way Free Software, which requires to some extend the eradication of those same digital shackles Cory was arguing against, is founded on the premise of "who controls your computer?". Meaning that if you are running proprietary software even a little bit, you are essentially giving away control of something you supposedly own. Making you lose a part of it. Making you not own a part of it anymore.

From one side it looks like Cory Doctorow is not seeing a contradiction in the words "Intellectual Property", while actively being against the concept of "Intellectual Property". While the philosophy behind the Free Software Movement is founded on the concept of that "Intellectual Property" is not just a bullshit collection of syllables, but an entirely false statement in and of itself.

If you own a computer, but can't do something with it because of some other person's copyright. You lose part of that computer to that other person. That other person is therefor technically committing an act of fraud. He is stealing a part of your computer. You are not stealing his property by trying to use your computer. You are simply reclaiming your computer.

Cory Doctorow continued his observation on the differences between the left and the right by claiming that the left cares about who has control over who. Making an example of a single mother who needs to work her ass off to get some money to feed her kids. She doesn't do that because she wants to. She doesn't do that because she consents, so to speak. But because otherwise the kids would die of starvation.

Where is consent in going to work, when you need the money to simply survive?

This sounds strangely profound in a way, until you consider the case of Armin Meiwes and Bernd Brandes, which is considered to be the most plausible case of consented murder. Or when you consider many cases around the world of very ill people who sign off a consent form to let them die. Suicide in a way is the best test for freedom. If a person has real freedom, the person has the right to commit harm to himself. Therefor choosing to go to work and not dying is a choice. Right?

There is another possible, even though fictional, consent to murder, depicted in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report. Where Leo Crow, spoiler alert, needs John Anderton to kill him, so that his family will be provided with something to live off. In this case, it is strangely reminiscent of the case brought up by Cory Doctorow. Does the woman actually consents to work, when she has a starving baby in the house?

Does the woman simply chooses to care for that baby? And if she didn't care for the baby, and just cared to keep living, is it her choice then to keep living and therefor to work? Or as soon as somebody needs something, the question of consent falls apart?

Coming back to software, a lot of people claim that they need to use proprietary software, either for work or something else. And the question is. Do they consent to it, or the existence of a need makes it some sort of a power dynamic?

Homeless people need houses.

Those people who own the houses do not consent to homeless people getting into their houses. Unless of-course they themselves consent to provide something in return. A sale is mutual consent of two owning parties, to swap ownership. I give you money, you give me item. In the case of the houses, the item are the houses. And the owners want the money to consent.

The problem is, homeless people have no money. Yet they still need houses.

But even that seems absurd. Probably the most hated merchant person is the one you pay rent to. There is something inherently wrong with paying rent. Most people seem to not even consent to it in the first place, even when they have the money to do so. It feels more like a burden that like a consensual decision.

Everybody needs a house, everybody NEEDS a house!

Are people that own houses the same kind of people that employ single moms? Is there actually any consent or are those power dynamics alone? Is it that when one needs something, completely undermines consent?

There seems to be apparent and absolutely clear lack of consent when we talk for example about a relationship between a student and a teacher. Say in a college. It is absolutely inexcusable for them to have any romantic relationships because of those power dynamics. Because the teacher can withhold good grades from students the teacher doesn't like. Or give good grades to those students that don't deserve them.

The teacher holds power to give or withhold something the student needs.

The act of sex between them seems like a kind of game of needs, the student does it for the grades, not because of some sort of consent. But not all people go to college and not all of those who do not go to college are homeless. A lot of people do not go to college and still have a perfectly good life. And therefor there is no mortal danger in not getting the grades, which means if the student has sex with the teacher, it was in fact actual consent. Even if it was for the grades. Because the student chose to have good grades. And the sex was the money. Right?

This sounds evil. But when we observe the same at work. Where people barely scratch to survive. Or in the grocery store, where essential items like bread and butter cost money. We don't think about it as evil. But people need to seemingly consent to take their money out of their pockets and exchange them to get those essential items.

This is all really confusing to me right now. It seems like one of those inescapable Catch-22s of philosophy. Something that should not be so utterly complicated. Yet it is.

Going back to software. I hope I can at least make a case to all those people who say they need to use Windows, or some other proprietary thing:

It's better to want to use it, than to need to use it.

Happy Hacking!!!



Next Previous JSON Markdown

Help

You can comment from Mastodon.

Go

Post