|
A foggy understanding or total misunderstanding of anarchy is common both in punk subculture(s) and in the mainstream throughout history. A couple of common mistakes are 1) to equate anarchy with disorder, and 2) to mistakenly categorize revolutionary socialists as anarchists and to therefore see "anarchists" as anti-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism (true anarchy and true capitalism could probably be equated, or at least they imply each other) ... socialist "anarchism" must be voluntary - that is, it relies upon such a condition for its socialism to qualify as anarchist. To be against capitalism is to be against anarchism. Various understandings and misunderstandings of anarchy have been popular earlier on with punks, and they were touching on something real that has to do with the individualism and anti-establishment ideas that many reach for and try to express. The punks and their ideas of what anarchy is about have remained mostly confused, and especially more recently they have been moving more toward a statist and socialist/communist "ideal" (though elements have been in the mix since near the beginning)... Conservative Punk has the potential to clarify and grasp the true anarchist (true capitalist) ideals that are at the laissez-faire, fight-for-freedom-and-what-is-right, individualist core of real "punk". People of both individualist and collectivist tendencies could benefit from an improved understanding of anarchy if upon acquiring this knowledge they make some effort to live up to the non-aggression principle at the heart of this model of justice. It is all pretty heavy, and this is among the reasons Conservative Punk is very important. What's exciting and inspiring is there are actually lots of people on the conservativepunk.com forums that get it. The punks are right to aim for anarchy (or at least its general libertarian and spontaneous, creative spirit). In the past they have failed to grasp it, but at Conservative Punk we are much closer. We should cultivate wider clear understanding among punks and non-punks alike. |
|
The Library of Congress in Washington, DC is over a year behind in processing new creative content registrations.
Why should the federal government have the monopoly on proof of intellectual property, which implies considerable power over creativity and creative people?
Historically, being officially registered with the Library of Congress in DC is the only way to guarantee one's intellectual property rights will be respected in court. While a “copyright” is technically created as soon as (in the case of a sound recording) audio is put to a tape/cd/mp3/medium, evidence of this fact is likely needed in the case of a dispute. Hence, registration.
Yes, but registration requires a fee for each album (about $40 last time I checked), is inefficient (takes over a year before anyone even gets to it because all new registrations must be processed through a single location for all 50 states), and it seems the people who finally see the content you sent in a year ago are more concerned with their organization's procedures, forms, and clutter than actually recording the fact that your creative content exists and deserves protection. If they determine by their own mysterious rules and procedures that a mistake (yours or theirs) has been made, the registration is voided and they keep your money. How frustrating! Do they expect one to try to get it right, send another $40 and wait another year? Something has got to give.
Some rational people try to do it themselves and avoid the considerable fee by sending a single copy of the album (or whatever) to themselves through the postal service for a few bucks with proof of date (such as a receipt) attached or stamped to it. Makes sense, right? To my knowledge, this is not considered to be proof admissible in court. In my opinion, the only things that may be weak about this approach would be either the lack of guaranteed organization or the lack of witnesses. It seems to be implied that the US Postal Service, a relatively capable government agency that processes and files an unspeakably large number of packages in mailboxes throughout the country in a timely manner, is not a good enough witness for the courts.
If that is the case, why not avoid the bottleneck by having several local (state or county) registration libraries? Surely these could process new registrations in a timely and more convenient manner. These registration libraries could then communicate with each other as needed in the case of a dispute without having to deal with anyone in DC.
Taking it a step further, why not allow private entities to act as witnesses and registration libraries? Bottlenecks could be avoided by having a diverse number of options, and the more entities with which one registers, the more proof he has of his property interest in the intellectual material. What is that, you say? Private companies have private interests? They could be rated by customers and other specialized agencies to ensure their files are accurate. Competition could encourage quality.
Required registration with a faraway government institution at the risk of losing property interests in one's creation is clearly hostile to the creator. As it currently stands, such registration is not any kind of timely guarantee of proof in exchange for the required fee and paperwork. Such time and money may be better spent with private intellectual property registration companies or with more efficient, nearby state registration libraries. Evidence toward proof of one's intellectual property interests is what should concern the courts, and the laws should reflect this. In the meantime, the property interests of creative people are held hostage in limbo. |
|
|
It was circa 1984 that “emo” (or “emotional hardcore”) began to raise its ugly head in Washington, DC among the people in the local hardcore scene who sought to expand musically beyond the stylistic trappings of hardcore punk. The broader “indie rock” scene of the 80s was beginning to distinguish itself from hardcore around the same time. The change in lyrical themes reflected the coinciding change toward so-called “progressive” ideals among the former hardcore crowd. The leftward effects we have been feeling on mainstream and underground punk-related music in the 1990s and 2000s can be traced to these changes, especially as a heavily mutated form of “emo” has recently made a huge splash in popular culture. Without a doubt, The Clash, MDC, Dead Kennedys, Maximumrocknroll, and the hippie counterculture had a huge effect as well.
The ideals tied up in the change from apolitical or antipolitical hardcore to “progressive” emo is enough to consider it suspect, but the sappy emotional excess that plagues its worst victims should make it anathema. Being emotionally involved is not the same as being emotionally mature, and without the latter the results can be pretty ugly. When you add “progressive” politics to this mixture, you get an era of leftist hysteria among otherwise harmless teenagers and twenty-somethings. The mainstream media and public schools have already picked up these ideas, so the effect on the youth is nearly inescapable. They are already primed for the college multiculturalists who will confirm these falsehoods in controlled campus environments and send the graduates off as their useful idiots to do their work in the outside world.
As Churchill said, “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain”. However, by that time, the damage has been done and the next generation is already suffering the psychosis of these mental slaughterhouses.
It is also fashionable to bash “emo” these days, but perhaps not for the best reasons. Stylistic differences in music and fashion are usually the excuses, and while these are often legitimate, the big picture of emotional progressivism and two-faced marxist multiculturalism is usually left untouched.
There is a lot of good that can come from the relatively acceptable fashions associated with “emo”, but negative side effects also threaten to nullify these advances. In particular, men are encouraged to enjoy a wider range of hair and clothing options than before, and it would be good if this tendency remains and does not become a short-lived fad. However, the blatant emotionalism of the “emo” subculture threatens to squander this empowered masculinity with a shift to identifying as feminine and often an unnaturally elevated veneration for all things feminine. These can be confusing times, but it is no excuse to switch sides! Punk was about freedom, but modern “emo” often takes this sentiment and bends it to fit the increasingly popular, multiculturalist-inspired identity politics advanced in schools and in the mass media.
The recently-organized rationalhardcore movement is named in a way that implies opposition to the “emo” shift in hardcore/punk because rationalhardcore values sound reasoning and logical application of the libertarian Non-Aggression principle as the proper groundwork for living a full and just life. An emotionally mature punker living by libertarian principles can be a strong force for good, whereas an emotionally inundated punker parroting marxist-inspired government-expanding slogans is simply a tool for the criminally-inclined “victim” culture. The influence of 80s “emo” is largely to blame. The conservative punk and rationalhardcore movements would happen anyway, but the resurgence of “emo” made them imperative. |
|
