PDA

View Full Version : Halloween: Effective and effortless outreach opportunity




OferNave
10-18-2008, 03:01 PM
On Halloween night, I plan to sit by the door, reading. When the doorbell rings, I will open it, give some candy to the children... and give two documentaries to the parents.

The two I've chosen are The Money Masters and America: Freedom to Fascism. You can choose whichever documentaries you want, of course - whatever you think is best to get the word out.

I'm burning copies myself. I've bought 100 count boxes of blank DVDs and paper sleeves from Stables. Between the DVD and the paper sleeve, each documentary will cost me 40 cents. Since I'm giving away a pair of documentaries to each adult, that's 80 cents for each adult. I burn copies in the background while I'm web surfing, so it doesn't take any additional time out of my schedule. After a few evenings I had a nice stack of 50 of each documentary burned, labeled (with a Sharpie marker), and ready to give out.

For labeling, I wrote the name of the documentary at the top of the disc, then (DVD) underneath it to make it clear that you can play it in a dvd player, and finally, "Pass it on!" at the bottom to encourage the disc to continue propogating.

I hope you consider doing the same. Thanks!

tonesforjonesbones
10-18-2008, 03:05 PM
How do you do that when they are copywrited? Griffin says money masters is controlled opposition...he has a list of them ..that's on the list. tones

LittleLightShining
10-18-2008, 03:22 PM
Great idea!

I wish I lived in a neighborhood where kids trick-or-treated! I'd give them pocket Constitutions.

OferNave
10-18-2008, 04:27 PM
How do you do that when they are copywrited? Griffin says money masters is controlled opposition...he has a list of them ..that's on the list. tones

Well, first of all, I don't care about copyright. I don't agree with intellectual property.

Second, there are many great documentaries who's producers would rather have the information shared than not. If you believe in the fantasy of intellectual property and want to respect the producer's wishes, feel free to poke around and determine which ones have "please give away" status.

Third, I agree with Griffin about disagreeing with the conclusion of Money Masters. The narrator presents the Milton Friedman Chicago-school solution of fiat money, just controlled by Congress instead of the Fed. I, like Griffin, agree with the Austrian school of complete separation of Bank and State.

However, the first three hours contains the most accurate and comprehensive history of money and banking I have found anywhere. So it's still useful. If you only use documentaries you agree with 100%, you'll have none left to use.

thehighwaymanq
10-18-2008, 05:14 PM
BUMP!

Good idea!

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 05:21 PM
Well, first of all, I don't care about copyright. I don't agree with intellectual property.



So if I don't agree with laws regarding theft, then should I be like you and just fucking steal whatever catches my fancy?

OferNave
10-18-2008, 05:51 PM
So if I don't agree with laws regarding theft, then should I be like you and just fucking steal whatever catches my fancy?

I'm not going to argue intellectual property with you. Off topic. You don't have to do this if you don't like, or as I said, you can restrict yourself to documentaries that the creator has given permission to give away.

jcarcinogen
10-18-2008, 06:17 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/honkywill/happypauloween.jpg

sidster
10-18-2008, 06:24 PM
interesting idea. i don't get any trick-or-treaters so ...

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 06:29 PM
I'm not going to argue intellectual property with you. Off topic. You don't have to do this if you don't like, or as I said, you can restrict yourself to documentaries that the creator has given permission to give away.

You're an unrepentant thief. You've got nothing to argue about. FOAD.

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 06:30 PM
So if I don't agree with laws regarding theft, then should I be like you and just fucking steal whatever catches my fancy?

No, because then you'd actually be harming somebody. Thats the difference.

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 06:33 PM
No, because then you'd actually be harming somebody. Thats the difference.

Change your screen name to powerofignorance.

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 06:35 PM
Change your screen name to powerofignorance.

Lol. IP is nonsense.

yongrel
10-18-2008, 06:35 PM
Instead of violating copyright law, try this:

http://www.ronpauldvd.com/

It's cheap AND awesome.

cheapseats
10-18-2008, 06:55 PM
No, because then you'd actually be harming somebody. Thats the difference.

If you produce widgets for a living and I produce original ideas set in fixed form for a living, and I steal your widgets and you steal my ideas, how is it that you are hurt and I am not?

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 07:06 PM
If you produce widgets for a living and I produce original ideas set in fixed form for a living, and I steal your widgets and you steal my ideas, how is it that you are hurt and I am not?

http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

http://www.mises.org/store/product.aspx?ProductId=523

http://blog.mises.org/archives/001771.asp

Intellectual property is contrary to a free market.

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 07:12 PM
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

http://www.mises.org/store/product.aspx?ProductId=523

http://blog.mises.org/archives/001771.asp

Intellectual property is contrary to a free market.

A fallacious appeal to authority.

cheapseats
10-18-2008, 07:13 PM
Intellectual property is contrary to a free market.

Preposterous.

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 07:22 PM
A fallacious appeal to authority.

lmao

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 07:23 PM
Preposterous.

Great counterpoint. Dunno how to respond to your well-formed and carefully considered argument.

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 07:26 PM
lmao

And a weak authority at that. Here's an appeal to an actual authority:

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Don't agree with it? Then amend the constitution or stfu.

OferNave
10-18-2008, 07:30 PM
Will all you trolls please stop side-tracking this thread? I am not going to discuss IP, period. You will get no rebuttal from me, because that's not what I'm here for.

Now... does anyone have any comments about the idea itself?

eredeath
10-18-2008, 07:32 PM
char

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 07:35 PM
Will all you trolls please stop side-tracking this thread? I am not going to discuss IP, period. You will get no rebuttal from me, because that's not what I'm here for.

Now... does anyone have any comments about the idea itself?

It's a good idea. But when you commit a crime in order to achieve your goal, the result is tainted. It's kind of like torturing a suspect to get a confession.

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 07:38 PM
It's a good idea. But when you commit a crime in order to achieve your goal, the result is tainted. It's kind of like torturing a suspect to get a confession.

A heinous crime indeed. Ideas are neither scarce nor property.

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 07:40 PM
And a weak authority at that. Here's an appeal to an actual authority:

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Don't agree with it? Then amend the constitution or stfu.

You've determined copyright laws are Constitutional, not legitimate. Unless maybe your a legal positivist?

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 07:41 PM
Ideas are neither scarce nor property.

Good ideas are very scarce indeed.

OferNave
10-18-2008, 07:43 PM
SeanEdwards - we've all heard your thoughts, now. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

Does anyone else have anything different to discuss?

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 07:58 PM
Good ideas are very scarce indeed.

Bookstores have no trouble stocking their shelves last time I checked. Or movie rental stores... or music shops... etc. Ideas are intangible. They are not property.



Natural Law and the Second Homesteading Principle- N. Stephan Kinsella

Some advocates of copyright and other forms if IP try to justify IP with natural law type arguments. For example, some say that the author "creates" a work, and "thus" is entitled to own it. However, this argument begs the question by assuming that the authored work is property in the first place; once this is granted, it seems natural that the "creator" of this piece of property is the natural and proper owner of it.

But "creation" does not justify ownership in things. If I homestead a farm, there need be no "creativity" involved, in the copyright sense; I need only be the first possessor of the land. On the other hand, if I carve a statue into your block of marble, I do not thereby own the resulting statue. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion. Thus, creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership.

It is scarcity that is the hallmark of ownable property, and it is by first possession that one comes to own such ownable property. This can be seen by examining the purpose and nature of property rights. Were things in infinite abundance, there would be no need for property rights. But in the real world, there are scarce resources. These things can be used and controlled by only a single person.

Because of this fact of scarcity, there is always the possibility of interpersonal conflict over scarce resources. If I take your lawnmower, you no longer have it. If I take over your house and your land, you lose control of it. These tangible goods are scarce. Property rights exist to allocate ownership in scarce resources to a specified owner, thereby permitting conflicts over the use of these scarce resources to be avoided (and resolved). Thus, it is only things that are scarce, in the economic sense, that can be property. This is why, for example, there can be ownership of tangible, scarce resources such as land, cars, printing press, paper, and ink. Moreover, in the libertarian and conservative view, these property rights in scarce resources are allocated in accordance the Lockean homesteading rule, in which unowned scarce resources are homesteaded by the first possessor.(9)

The intangible "things" covered by copyright are simply not scarce, in this sense. An idea or pattern of words, for example, can be copied by others an infinite amount of times, without "taking" the idea from its originator. Unlike tangible property, several persons can use the idea at the same time, independently. If you copy my novel, I still "have" the novel, and you have it, now, too. Ideas are not scarce and are not property. As Thomas Jefferson, himself an inventor and the United States' first Patent Examiner, wrote, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." For this reason, copyrightable works should not be viewed as property, and copyrights should not be granted.

In fact, because ideas are not property, granting property rights in them has to end up diluting the property rights accorded to actual, scarce resources. And this is exactly what we see. As pointed out above, to grant an author a copyright in his novel means that he now has partial ownership rights in all others' tangible property. For example, an author, Arthur, can prevent Brown, owner of Blackacre, from using Blackacre to recreate Arthur's book-pattern. Yet by the Lockean homesteading principle, once the unowned tract Blackacre is homesteaded by Brown's first possession of it, Blackacre is no longer unowned, and no longer subject to homesteading. There is no unowned property left to homestead. Thus, no action by Arthur can result in his homesteading part ownership of Blackacre. Brown is the first possessor and owner of Blackacre, not Arthur.(10)

Indeed, by explaining the situation in these terms, we can see why Arthur has no copyright in his authored work: not only is Blackacre not subject to homesteading (it is already owned), not only is Arthur not the first possessor of Blackacre (Brown beat him to it) – but Arthur is not a possessor at all of Blackacre. Arthur could not even homestead an unowned tract of land, Greenacre, by merely writing a novel. The act of writing a novel is not an act of possession of Greenacre, much less first possession of it.

To grant Arthur rights in Blackacre, merely by virtue of setting down in writing an original expression of ideas, requires the Lockean homesteading rule to be undermined by a new, second homesteading principle. This new rule provides a second way that an individual can come to own tangible property. To-wit, the copyright advocate must propose some homesteading rule along the following lines: "A person who comes up with some creative idea which can be used to imprint a pattern on his own property, thereby instantly gains a right to control all other tangible property in the world, with respect to that property's similar use." This new-fangled homesteading technique is so powerful that it gives the creator rights in third parties' already-owned tangible property. This second rule of homesteading has no justification whatsoever, and can only dilute and undermine private property rights just where they are needed, in scarce resources. For these reasons, property rights in ideas are not justified, and Napster should not be penalized by such unjust laws.


And btw, to the OP: I like the idea. Definitely go ahead with it, imo.

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 08:20 PM
http://laser2.legs-world.co.uk/images/owned-tank.jpg

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 08:48 PM
You could also burn a compilation of pro-liberty youtube videos to a dvd. Or would the quality be too crappy?

danberkeley
10-18-2008, 09:02 PM
I think a better idea would be to pass out copies of "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy" by Richard J. Maybury, if you can find cheap copies of it. Mises.org might have PDF copy for free and perhaps you burn a CD copy of it to pass out.

powerofreason
10-18-2008, 09:42 PM
Or maybe just a flyer explaining the financial crisis. That could be effective.

yongrel
10-18-2008, 09:46 PM
Instead of violating copyright law, try this:

http://www.ronpauldvd.com/

It's cheap AND awesome.

this

Andrew-Austin
10-18-2008, 09:51 PM
I never see parents come up to the door with their kids.

Giving political DVDs to kids sounds kinda weird, but I'm sure most parents would just watch it themselves and be like "w/e".

OferNave
10-18-2008, 09:54 PM
Instead of violating copyright law, try this:

http://www.ronpauldvd.com/

It's cheap AND awesome.

It was awesome... for the campaign. The campaign is over. I'm not trying to educate people about Ron Paul. I want to give them non-partisan useful factual information about how the world works. I want to spread truth. That's the only way we'll win in the long run.

Brassmouth
10-18-2008, 11:25 PM
Three points:

#1: Forget the parents. The small minority that actually accompany their kids are most likely sheep. They are indoctrinated and probably hopeless. Hand out the material to the kids! The older ones especially.

#2: Freedom to Fascism is too tainted by conspiracy theory. If we're going to be taken seriously you people have to wake up and realize not everyone believes that we're all going to be implanted with chips and enslaved. Stick to more informative material, such as Money Masters and Fiat Empire. Also, all of John Stossel's documentaries are available via bittorrent. Download them and burn them, they're invaluable and, best of all for the sheeple, mainstream.

#3: There's a time to debate IP. Now is not it. After we have free markets, sound money, and a responsible government (oxymoron?), THEN you guys can worry about IP. For now, burn everything you need to educate the masses.

SeanEdwards
10-18-2008, 11:50 PM
It might be cool to hand out dvd's with the Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM) on them.

OferNave
10-18-2008, 11:57 PM
Thanks for the suggestions!

josephadel_3
10-19-2008, 01:13 AM
Three points:

#1: Forget the parents. The small minority that actually accompany their kids are most likely sheep. They are indoctrinated and probably hopeless. Hand out the material to the kids! The older ones especially.

#2: Freedom to Fascism is too tainted by conspiracy theory. If we're going to be taken seriously you people have to wake up and realize not everyone believes that we're all going to be implanted with chips and enslaved. Stick to more informative material, such as Money Masters and Fiat Empire. Also, all of John Stossel's documentaries are available via bittorrent. Download them and burn them, they're invaluable and, best of all for the sheeple, mainstream.

#3: There's a time to debate IP. Now is not it. After we have free markets, sound money, and a responsible government (oxymoron?), THEN you guys can worry about IP. For now, burn everything you need to educate the masses.

qft

BeFranklin
10-19-2008, 01:39 AM
Wear a V costume and say your a Ron Paul Revolutionary. That'll scare them. :D:p

TastyWheat
10-21-2008, 05:23 PM
Which one of these do you think is the best: Money, Banking, and The Federal Reserve, Fiat Empire, or Money Masters?

I've only seen "Money, Banking, and The Federal Reserve" and I liked it pretty well. I haven't seen the others. Ideally, I'd love to hand out John Stossel's "Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics" but I don't think I could find good quality video to burn.

sidster
10-21-2008, 08:28 PM
http://blownmortgage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/halloween.jpg

AutoDas
10-22-2008, 11:44 AM
Every Halloween when the moonlight and festive lighting hits the light pole on my street with a green-blue tinge, Ayn Rand gives a three hour invective speech on how you're feeding the Parasites.

mczerone
10-22-2008, 12:04 PM
I like the idea, and would also like to caution against illegal distribution, but that probably won't be an issue in this case. If you were handing out free copies of "The Lion King", that would be a different story.

Though I think the subject matter and media type should be very carefully chosen. Freedom to Fascism isn't a great video, and its not an introduction to libertarianism (or whatever brand of liberty you subscribe to).

It might be productive to give CDs of Mises audio-books, something like "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" or "For a New Liberty".

We need the C4L to ramp up dedication to education, and professionally produce some basic introduction to philosophy. A "Das Kapital" for the 21st century.

If you have the money, you could also pass out copies of TR:AM. :D

mczerone
10-22-2008, 12:08 PM
Every Halloween when the moonlight and festive lighting hits the light pole on my street with a green-blue tinge, Ayn Rand gives a three hour invective speech on how you're feeding the Parasites.

This isn't Capitalistic Wealth redistribution, its a harvest festival where people voluntarily hand out candy to happy children.

You are miserable in your dark house while the people of the world around you puts aside political differences and enjoy themselves for the sake of enjoyment itself.

You are free to do so, and I will not force you to pass out bite-sized confections nor Liberation propaganda. But it doesn't sound like you will have any fun.

TastyWheat
10-23-2008, 06:27 PM
I just thought about it and this is a pretty risky idea, unless you hand out legitimate copies or get special permission from the copyright holder. Think about it, you are in fact illegally distributing copyrighted material AND everybody you hand a dvd to knows where you live.