On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:17, Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
<RinneN_at_district279.org> wrote:
> I hope this doesn't come across to you as being too anal. : )
No, "anal" wasn't the word I was thinking of.
Ahem. :)
I think that your sentiment is true, however it doesn't alter or
affect what I said; society has decided, probably unconsciously, that
some things are free. Like search engines. Freedom of speech. Walking
in the park. Playing on the beach. Libraries. And so on. But society
is an unfair and uncontrollable (in many ways) force, and decides
still if those things belong in the "value" and / or "cost"
categories. I'm not sure we can make conscious and directed decisions
to alter too many of them. Society is a bitch that way.
The cost you speak of is simply the cost of living in that society. I
won't go into the whole "those who show love are paying the cost (for
their weakness)" as it trespasses to much on the horrors of Rand and
corrupt egoism, but I'd like to mention that oxygen pays the price of
being too close to my mouth as I breathe, and helium was asking for
trouble being stuck in the sun and all. And atoms! Oh, don't they know
to get out of the way when neutrons decide to go AWOL?
Some free things doesn't have a cost; they have consequences, and I
suspect it's too broad and wrong to lump that into the generic "cost"
category.
But otherwise, I think we don't have too much of a disagreement. :)
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Fri Sep 18 2009 - 19:06:48 EDT