Roberto Rachewsky

Porto Alegre, Brazil

Someone is shy

Roberto hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

106639
Roberto Rachewsky
Posted over 3 years ago
Lawrence Lessig: Laws that choke creativity
Moreover, he uses false or contradictory arguments, such as: If the U.S. court held that the property was limited to the point of not disrupt air traffic, the same courts determined that the copying and sharing is illegal. Likewise, he decreed the bankruptcy of ASCAP and dominance of BMI. We can easily identify a fraud here. Look at the following text: "But while the public enjoyed ASCAP's growing repertoire, radio broadcasters Grew reluctant to honor ASCAP license fees. In 1940, ASCAP During Negotiations with over rates, the broadcasters Formed Their Own Competing organization as a ploy to drive future costs Their music is down. But the ASCAP Demanded public broadcasters and the music AGREED to new rates. " This text was taken from the ASCAP site. ASCAP has currently over 400,000 members, including Fergie!! Come on Larry, shame on you!!!
106639
Roberto Rachewsky
Posted over 3 years ago
Lawrence Lessig: Laws that choke creativity
The purest definition of "creating" would be"bring into existence out of nothing." Mixing can’t be understood as an original creation. A contract between two parties established in a mutually spontaneous form is the real law in a free society. It is the higher law to be respected. Those, which produce something out from nothing, should be entitled to enjoy all the fruits arising from their action. Mixing, by using what was previously created by someone is a misappropriation and belongs, by association, to those original authors. Therefore, without the consent of the original creator of something , none can take it, perverting the concept of liberty and property. More protection to the right to intellectual property, more will be the outcome to the society. The human mind stimulated by the challenge of creating and innovating, despite the huge stock of ideas already put into practice; and also, by the rewards and profitable results arising from the act of producing something not yet offered. Now, there is a controversy in the philosophical debate. There are anarcho-capitalists who believe that the property law just not feasible physical and intellectually. They claim that intellectual property law restricts the right to ownership of physical things, once the owners of the items will not be able to rearrange it, as they would like to do. Hence the usurpation of property rights. Meanwhile, the objectivist's view is that idea is a product of human's mind which generates by extension the fruits, which can not be taken from the creator of it. Otherwise ,the creator will not be able to enjoy the results to ensure his right to freedom and therefore his right to life. What would be philosophically immoral. I presume that Larry does not care about property and individuals at all, what makes me believe that he mistakenly believes that, freedom is the right to do what someone wants to, instead of, what I believe: the right to not to be forced to do what I do not want to.
106639
Roberto Rachewsky
Posted over 3 years ago
How do we encourage society to see the value of arts and creativity outside the context of business or industry?
Seems to me that you have not understood what I stated. When government subsidises artists or pays for their work directly with money collected from individuals through the tax system, this is using money taken by force to pay for artwork. In several countries, government uses his power to collect taxes and uses this money to praise artists to get support from the public opinion. I am an art lover and I invest a lot in art. Also, I one of my sons is a talent artist and I am very proud of it.
106639
Roberto Rachewsky
Posted over 3 years ago
How can we empower kids to reshape the education system? *A TEDActive Education Project Question*
The question here is: why do we need government, with all its incompetence, to provide education to our kids? People who pays taxes but has no money to afford private schools does not have choice. Neither to runaway from tax collectors nor to pick the school of their choice. Once government will collect taxes anyway, at least the people could have their right to choose what is better to their children. Everybody should have the right to get the voucher. Also those who currentlto grant y have chosen to afford private school to their children are also funding public school while they are paying for taxes. This is unfair. It is proven that public school cost almost the same as a private school but far less qualification. Several countries and even states in the USA use voucher system to fund and develop their educational programs. With this system, people get the best possible arrangement from capitalism: free of choice to the individuals, no matter their income and standard of living (demand) and competition to offer the best education with lower costs (supply); and from socialism: sharing money collected from individuals by force. Of course, home schooling would be included in this arrangement, where parents who spend time teaching their children would be reimbursed by such vouchers upon their costs. Everyone of us would be able to choose what, now-a-days, is restricted only to privileged people: location, subject, system, secular or non-secular, hebrew, catholic, whatever we can and can afford.
106639
Roberto Rachewsky
Posted over 3 years ago
We need stricter regulations on commercials about unhealthy foods on TV. Replacing those with ads about healthy food will make a difference.
Parent control is available for anyone of us who has a cable tv or an internet linked computer to implement censorship at home. You do not need to ask for government to do that. Free choice is much better than government fascist solutions. Repeting what I wrote before: Government should only provide security and guarantee legal process to anyone of us. When you say that government should provide welfare, you are forgetting about who will pay for that. It is a shame living with our hands in other people´s pockets. That is not welfare, it´s stealing. I do believe you can take care of your brother, as you mentioned you do. Like you, most of americans care about their kids. I would never trust on government, which is incompetent, to educate, feed or provide healthcare to any of my three sons. Government is a cold and faceless entity. What they give you with one hand, take from you with another. Besides taking your money or somebody else´s money, they take also your freedom and dignity. You are undervaluating what parents or relatives can do. Look yourself. If you can, why others can´t? It´s time to call back responsability to the individual about we care most...those who we love.
106639
Roberto Rachewsky
Posted over 3 years ago
How can we empower kids to reshape the education system? *A TEDActive Education Project Question*
Public schools do not have the monopoly of goodwill. Schools in a competitive environment will try to offer the best to their students. Otherwise parents will avoid the schools, which are not well ranked. Results (grades, sponsorships, good jobs) will show to the market the schools we should choose and those we should avoid. Public control is a delusion anyway when we talk about staterun facilities. It is the paradise for burocrats and demagogues. Today, everybody wants to go to private schools but a few can afford it. Demand for a good education is much bigger than offer in an unbelievable way because people would to avoid public school if they could. However, there is no choice for them. Rich people or gifted talent people have granted access to the best places. Where is the equality here? Poor people or ordinary people go to ordinary public school where competitiveness lacks. There are two problems to be faced: how to privatise and how to manage the voucher system to keep the money safe from the burocrats and usual corruption. PS: Funds do not come from government. It come from every individual who contributes for education. What comes in, must goes out. I do not trust in government but, I can accept them taking care of those funds, instead of taking care of our children´s education.
106639
Roberto Rachewsky
Posted over 3 years ago
We need stricter regulations on commercials about unhealthy foods on TV. Replacing those with ads about healthy food will make a difference.
Why are you all trying to establish the way other people should live? We should be worried when someone initiates violence or fraud against others. Isn´t it what are you trying to do? Forcing people to behave as you wish? If you want to spend your time and money to do so, I see no problem. However, asking a pachyderm (government) to step into. We all will be trampled.