Monday, October 5, 2009

“The Catastrophe” - What the End of Bronze-Age Civilization Means for Modern Times

The Destruction of Troy by Jan Brueghel the Elder

Every city in a Desolate Crescent from the Aegean to the Sinai was razed to the ground: a bloody, sudden inverse of millenia of building. People lost cities, cultures, names. Gods were forgotten. Traditions died. Empires ended: splintering first into regions, then cities, then smaller. The mightiest and best organized, like Egypt, managed to bend every nerve, staving off collapse for a generation before shattering.

Finally, there was a gap: the long total blank that frustrates the hell out of anyone trying to look back. What is known is that everything stopped, with the catastrophe's survivors left only with legends of a better time and a centuries-long struggle for bare subsistence.

This was the Bronze Age Collapse, the first Dark Age in recorded history, and the one everyone forgets about (when you think of Dark Age, do Egyptians battling the Sea Peoples come to mind? No, it's togas, Goths and vomitoriums) despite the fact that it was arguably more devastating than the end of the Roman Empire.

To imagine the scale, picture this: almost every city in Western Europe and North America destroyed. Not reduced, not scaled down. People-don't-live-here-anymore-just-ruins destroyed. Everywhere else is in turmoil. Armed bands, growing larger with every subsequent disaster, keep spreading out in search of new loot. Some particularly rich pocket of civilization (East or West Coast U.S., France, Japan, Australia, take your pick) strains every nerve to deal with the threat, drafting all able-bodied adults to arms. The immediate physical danger is stopped (say by air power and machine guns), but the process so uproots the civilization that it too collapses in a generation.

It was that nasty. It was an apocalypse. That's why there's a hell of a lot to be learned from the first time the lights went out. --

http://thebreakingtime.typepad.com/the_breaking_time/there-is-no-they/


Egyptian soldier fighting a warrior of the "Sea People."

My thanks to Wretched Dog for forwarding this link and this link to:

“The Catastrophe” - What the End of Bronze-Age Civilization Means for Modern Times by Thomas F. Bertonneau at


Excerpts:

“If the affluent society should begin to federate members of the external proletariat for unskilled labor or military service, as the Bronze Age kingdoms seem to have done with the Shardana and the Shekelesh and as the Roman Empire did with the Gothic barbarians, then the internal and external proletariats can arrive at a sense of a common grudge and, however dimly perceived, of a common cause. The avarice of the proletariat can grow stronger than the commitment of the civic classes to their own preservation.”


“Archeologists, historians, and classicists call it “the Catastrophe.” It happened more than three thousand years ago in the lands surrounding the Eastern Mediterranean. Neither geological nor climatological but rather sociological in character, this chaotic enormity erased civilization in a wide swath of geography stretching from the western portions of Greece east to the inner fastnesses of Anatolia, and all the way to Mesopotamia; it turned south as well, overrunning many islands, finally swamping the borders of Egypt. It left cities in smoking ruin, their wealth plundered; it plunged the affected regions into a Dark Age, bereft of literacy, during which populations drastically shrank while the level of material culture reverted to that of a Stone Age village. “


“Envy or resentment, disregard for law and civilized achievement, and a strong proclivity to violent expropriation of other men’s chattels constitute the chief traits of the Hesiodic 'Iron Age.'”


“The fate of Troy at the hands of the Achaean expedition foretells the fate of many a heroic kingdom on its monarch’s return. Homer thus grasps acutely that he lives in a time of providential revival. Homer knows that between his own brightening day and the last sunlit era stretches a prolonged twilight commencing with abrupt destruction and consisting in fallow centuries.”


“The architects of the Cypriote cities built according to a sophisticated aesthetic, influenced by the old Cretan civilization. These exquisite towns met their death at just about the same time as the Anatolian cities met theirs. At one Cypriote site, the fleeing citizens hid their valuables in cubbyholes, imagining that they might soon return. Cyprus, like Attica, evidences a modicum of cultural continuity in the aftermath of the Catastrophe. The new style compares with the old, however, in an impoverished way. The people resettle not so much in the old places as in difficult-to-reach mountain fastnesses. The new architecture is – defensive.”


“Widespread drought leading to famine and disease, which the records of Hatti attest, might well have created a social crisis, with a cascading effect, with which administrative inflexibility could not cope. Yet as Drews emphasizes, despite their cumbersomeness, the Bronze Age kingdoms apparently functioned as usual right up to the hour of their sudden demise.”


“…contempt sprung from envy: the envy of the savage who sees across the borders into the ease and luxury of a more highly developed way of life and schemes how he might profit by the labor of others.”


“The cities are vulnerable; a mass of skirmishers can defeat the chariot brigades. The victorious horde can take what it wants from the defenseless settlement – food, wine, plate, and women. Rumors of the Dorian success might well have emboldened the Gasga to descend on Hattusas. Soon, all sorts of marginal people would have reached the decision to strike now and take their chances. No one had a plan. The motive everywhere was invidious, concupiscent, and bestially myopic. It stemmed from long-festering differences and capacities.”


Go to the links and read the whole thing. Then start looking for defensible ground.

Mike
III

18 comments:

thedweeze said...

What I believe is the first book to broach this subject is Robert Drews' "The End of the Bronze Age" (Princeton University Press, 1993). Most of this book can be read for free via Google Books.

"Proper" Late Bronze Age (LBA) warfare involved a flat piece of ground so that your chariot-borne archers could rain arrows down on the Other Guy's chariot-borne archers. Infantry, such as it was, was used to kill off any charioteers who fell out or had their horses/vehicles disabled. The Shardana (modern day Sardinia) and Shekelesh (modern Sicily), amongst others, supplied this unorganized infantry all throughout the area of the LBA. Being within these armies, they figured out how to defeat chariots, developed *the* sword (Naue Type II) which didn't really change until the 7th Century BC, which should give you an idea of just how good this sword was, and proceeded to storm and loot everything they could.

The surviving Linear B tablets from both Pylos and Mycenae both list a pile of spare parts for the chariots, but no grunts. The palace guards throughout the LBA *was* the army, no citizen soldiers here. And they had no solution when faced with infantry equipped to and experienced in defeating chariot troops. So they went with Obsolete Tactics and got slaughtered, just like the Lobsterbacks on the way back to Boston in 1775.

Something that the article barely mentions is that the kingdoms with proper infantry troops survived 'the Catastrophe'. Look up Ramesses III's defeat of such an invader in 1179BC by adapting to the new weapons and tactics, something that my beloved Mycenaen Greeks never quite figured out, despite their having embraced the Naue II sword in greater numbers than anywhere else.

Lastly, Homer Is Not Historical. Yes, there are BA words (wanax, for instance) and scenes (Homer mentions chariots, but 4 centuries on, he doesn't understand how they were used during the LBA), but the Illiad is in fact a political document that delineates "Greekness", which is why you find city states in there that didn't exist in the Late Bronze Age (check the Catalogue of Ships). The Illiad is in fact the foundation document/myth for us, the West. Before that, Greece was the westernmost outpost of Middle Eastern LBA society. A more modern analogy is the Norman Conquest of England which transformed that country from part of Scandinavia to part of Western Europe.

thedweeze said...

And another thing: iron Naue II swords appeared more than a century after this all happened.

This was a situation of an improved weapon (still made of bronze), but most importantly, a novel tactic.

Take your enemies' strength and turn it into a weakness. You've all heard that one, right?

Not that this matters, of course: our 'betters' keep telling us that a man with a rifle is no match against jets and tanks....

The word to learn here is "kleos". It means fame, in the "your story will be told around the fire long after you're dead" kind of way. The opposite is "akleos", unknown/unremembered.

Do not die akleos. Molon Labe, my fellow Threepers.

Happy D said...

Don't worry I have it on good authority from an Anarchist, That once government is out of the way everything will get better. When we spend all our time just trying to protect the fruit of our labor from the thieving classes technology and knowledge will increase.
Interestingly enough a Collectivist promised the same thing from an all encompassing government.

The historical examples seem to disprove both groups.

Color me surprised.

Sean said...

And it won't relate to what's going to happen to us, except that it will be bad. I think educating the young'ns would be the best bet on coming out of the Troubles and getting them a better chance.

ColdToes said...

Will they be writing about us in the same manner 3,000 years from now?

Anonymous said...

Happy D I'm not trying to bash you brother (maybe sister I don't know) but the study of Anarchism or perhaps Market Anarchism has a lot to offer.

Even a casual study of the use Privateer Fleets and their effectiveness against state navies could illustrate the benefits of market based solutions over government solutions.

Hans Hermann Hoppe's writings are a good place to start as is his book, "The Myth of National Defense".

If we are to truly return to at the very least 'smaller government' the study of Market Anarchism should be part of your readings.

There is a lot of well thought out material there.

To keep instigating the government to try to do certain things for our interests only expands government power in the long run while diminishing freedom and liberty.

The term 'Anarchism' is tough to get around because it is so emotionally charged and not properly applied in many historical cases.

The Communists for example, may use some Anarchist concepts (definitely not Market Anarchism) to overthrow a government in order to replace it with their form of government....

Center for a Stateless Society as well as lewrockwell.com are good places to pursue some of these thought constructs. Even the writings of some of the Anti-Federalists (Brutus) during the debates over the Constitution offer some interesting insights....

I would offer that the government that we have and it's current trajectory with regards to spending, domestic and foreign policy are our greatest threats to civilization and the advent of possible 'Catastrophe'.

Best,

Cory

Anonymous said...

"Don't worry I have it on good authority from an Anarchist, That once government is out of the way everything will get better. When we spend all our time just trying to protect the fruit of our labor from the thieving classes technology and knowledge will increase."

And who are the thieving classes? The gang who takes your wallet once in your life, or the gang that takes half of everyone's paycheck? The difference between government and the Mafia is that government is the big jackpot winner parasite, while the Mafia is a distant number two. If the Mafia ever took over it would call itself government, to gain popular approval. 'Government is out of the way' means that total thief activity, regardless of gang affiliation, has been reduced to a small amount. How to reduce it at acceptable cost is the relevant problem. Attempting to treat gangs of thieves as gut bacteria and have less-harmful ones displace more-harmful ones was a plausible idea 200 years ago, but has proven to be a failure.

"The historical examples seem to disprove both groups."

Historical examples like the American industrial revolution, which blew away the world with its technological and knowledge increases in a legal environment of less government than had ever been seen before? Historical examples like the computer industry, which has doubled performance every year and a half for thirty years, while remaining the least regulated major industry ever in world history? The sum total of government licenses, educational certifications, and guild approvals legally required to be a programmer today is: zero. Take the hint.

Anonymous said...

You could view the destruction of Greek civilization and end of the Bronze Age as a disaster, or you could look on these events as a necessary prelude to establishing Israel in the land of Cannan (1,200 BC).

If you believe God directed history so as to weaken or destroy any possible confederation of interests that may have arisen against the Twelve Tribes, then the eclipse of pagan Greek civilization and the rise of Jewish monotheism is a development much to be applauded.

MALTHUS

Anonymous said...

"Historical examples like the American industrial revolution, which blew away the world with its technological and knowledge increases in a legal environment of less government than had ever been seen before?"

May we consider the period from 1832--when Jackson refused to renew a charter for the central bank--to 1913, when Congress authorized formation of the Federal Reserve, to be an era of "less government than had ever been seen before"?

Correlation is not causation.

Civil government may have had less control of economic life in our nation's early history than at present, but it was by no means absent.

Clayton Cramer has done a lot to explode the "no government" myth held dear by libertarian/anarchists. I am convinced of he essential correctness of his argument and believe you are remiss in not visiting his web site.

While it is true that the absence of central banking is a boon to private property rights, no economic order can unfold in the absence of government. Someone with a gun has to enforce contractual obligations.

Regards,

MALTHUS

Anonymous said...

I'm a gamer, so I watched the latest Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 trailer with quite a bit of interest.

A sobering thing happens near the end of the trailer: it shows Washington in flames, the Washington Monument with chunks torn out of it, the White House surrounded with barbed wire and sandbags, helicopters dropping troops and equipment off on the Mall, along with active combat.

Then I read this blog entry, and things start to crystalize...

Go here if you want to see the trailer, it's on their banner as the October 4th "World Premier Trailer."
http://www.infinityward.com/

Anonymous said...

"Clayton Cramer has done a lot to explode the "no government" myth held dear by libertarian/anarchists. I am convinced of he essential correctness of his argument and believe you are remiss in not visiting his web site."

There's a lot there. Can you recommend a few specific articles?

"no economic order can unfold in the absence of government. Someone with a gun has to enforce contractual obligations."

Your argument skipped from "contracts must be enforced with guns" to "only one contract enforcer, which has a monopoly and calls itself a 'government', can be allowed in a geographic region". This second condition is unjustified.

Competition benefits the little guy. If the Nazis go bad, hire the Allies to fight them. If both the Nazis and Allies go bad, hire a third group, and so on. When the number of players is high enough that cartels like the UN collapse easily, the situation improves for the common man.

Anonymous said...

A monopoly is when a criminal gang demands at gunpoint that you use only its trash collection, only its banks, only its police and courts. A monopoly is always tyranny, just as rape is always a crime no matter how handsome or eligible the assailant.

When an attempted rape victim drives off her attacker with a gun but has no intention of reporting it, the victim is acting as a competitor to the local police monopoly. I would like there to be a rifle in every sane adult's hands, producing billions of competitors for the job of policing and courts.

I'm asking for victims to stop believing that monopoly is morally valid and legitimate.

You might object that without a one world government to supply final answers, some legal questions might never be decided. And you would be correct! That is the result I desire. I don't want the Nazis to have the final word on the disposition of the Jews, or the UN to impose a mandatory planetwide monetary system. The downsides of feuds and range wars are a small problem compared to total war, genocide, and central planning.

Happy D said...

Thank you Cory for using a identifier or name, real or chosen so I know I am conversing with an individual not several people. I would post under my real name but have some serious security concerns at this time. I have a bad habit of confronting collectivists at demonstrations. This has resulted in some predictable and very real threats to my well being. I like the feeling of the extra security. Even though I know what a false and temporary security it is.
You are correct in assuming brother. If I may I would like to call you friend.
I am fortunate to have a few friends who are Anarchists. I do not consider the word inherently bad. But I first came to study Anarchism at the same time I was studying communism. The link between socialism anarchism and the horrors that followed does taint fairly and unfairly.

I want the government back in its box. Well actually a smaller sturdier box. With a list of what the government can do a little more limited. The list of what it can't do very broad. The call to the citizenry to use force to keep the gov in its place more clear. Clear enough that even a liberal judge will get the point. Pun not intended but still there.

Anarchism is a small word for a huge group of related philosophy. On the positive side we have libertarianism and such. On the negative side you get The First International with Karl Heinrich Marx a member of its General Council. Think of this group as the predecessors of the kids in Seattle destroying private property.

I often jump on Anarchism because of its adherents shallow understanding of the whole picture. Casual study of the use of Privateer Fleets and their effectiveness against state navies could illustrate the benefits of market based solutions over government solutions. True but deeper study would show how this tactic also lead to the out of control piracy problem of the same period.

My second problem is a little more personal. I must speak in deceptive terms here. I am "aware" of places on this good Earth where one can live in a society that meets most anarchist ideals. Most notably in the Pakistan Afghanistan region. In many ways it is like living in an L. Neil Smith novel. But I have no knowledge of an Anarchist influx to live the dream. They don't even have to go there. The Libertarians have done more to live their beliefs with the free state project. Most Anarchist projects that I am aware of are nothing but semi-organized crime such as Illegalism. So I can only conclude that most Anarchists in the west are the equivalent of parlor pinks the champagne Anarchists if you will.

The Anarchist movement is often talking about replacing Government with some private operation that does the same job. Let us call this new beast what it is, Government. If you think the rich bribe their way out of accountability now just see how this would work.

I would postulate that the question is how little Government can we get away with. Those who answer none refuse to even try to prove it can be done. That is unless they can make the rest of us pay for it.

I stumbled back here accidentally. I would not have thought to check the comments ten seconds earlier. I do not have the time to check this post regularly but I will try. I hope that this reaches your attention Cory.

If offense was given here I do apologize none was intended in this post.
Honored to be your friend Happy D

Happy D said...

I hope you are a different Anon than I have been communicating with recently.

"Historical examples like the American industrial revolution, which blew away the world with its technological and knowledge increases in a legal environment of less government than had ever been seen before?"

I suppose this had nothing to do with the protection provided by the new patent system? Or Interchangeable parts conceived by Honoré Blanc promoted in the U.S. by Eli Whitney and ordered a standard for all United States equipment by Congress. Yeah less government sure.

It never ceases to annoy me that the same Anarchists that call the patent system a legally enforced monopoly demand their copyrights protected.
Ever invent something? It is a lot harder than just putting an idea onto paper. The patent system is the only thing that gives an inventor a reasonable hope of recouping the capital outlay. It does not last very long. Sometimes it is not even worth getting. Many unique and new ideas never hit the factory floor because the patent search while applying for the patent found something similar that would be used to violate the patent sought.
To quote Wikipedia: "One effect of modern patent usage is that a small-time inventor can use the exclusive right status to become a licensor. This allows the inventor to accumulate capital from licensing the invention and may allow innovation to occur because he or she may choose to not manage a manufacturing buildup for the invention. Thus the inventor's time and energy can be spent on pure innovation, allowing others to concentrate on manufacturability."
Sometimes it is just better to be the first to market.
Want to see Technological development slow eliminating the patent system might be an effective tool (less government).
To quote Wikipedia again: "In many industries (especially those with high fixed costs and either low marginal costs or low reverse engineering costs — computer processors, software, and pharmaceuticals for example), once an invention exists, the cost of commercialization (testing, tooling up a factory, developing a market, etc.) is far more than the initial conception cost. (For example, the internal "rule of thumb" at several computer companies in the 1980s was that post-R&D costs were 7-to-1). Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies will not make that productization investment."
Another option would be to extend the time to the life of the inventor Like a copyright. Most likely a similar result (more government). To quote Wikipedia one more time:"In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent," patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did not have the legal protection of patents, in many cases, they would prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret. Awarding patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly available, for exploitation by anyone after the patent expires, or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when a patent's term has expired, the public record ensures that the patentee's idea is not lost to humanity".
Similar result different cause.
I am not advocating more government I am advocating just enough.

Happy D said...

"Historical examples like the computer industry, which has doubled performance every year and a half for thirty years, while remaining the least regulated major industry ever in world history? The sum total of government licenses, educational certifications, and guild approvals legally required to be a programmer today is: zero. Take the hint."

Take the hint? You do not even know what you are talking about! Moore's Law, the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years, the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months or every year and a half.

This is an engineering, science, and manufacturing achievement not a triumph of the programmers. Government licenses, educational certifications, and guild approvals legally and morally required to be a engineer today is: Massive depending on what type of engineer what state and so on. Don't believe me? Just try calling yourself an engineer without the certifications. Now don't get cute with the sanitation engineer bit. But choose what type carefully The civil and criminal penalties can be severe. If you screw up and someone gets killed the best you can hope for is a manslaughter charge. What you would deserve is a matter for others to care about.

Ever wonder why a virus free p.c. crashes for no reason? The answer is sloppy code written by programmers. I am not criticizing programmers. They are up against a lot of time constraints and other pressures.
Want to see sloppy programming in action? Call up the calculator function on a p.c. obtain a pocket calculator. Now set them to the same simple task. Usually the pocket calculator wins the race. On an older computer this is quite noticeable. On the newest computer the computing power may cover the slop up. I used to do this with one of the oldest pocket calculators and the newest p.c. on the market about four years ago. It was good for a laugh. Am I advocating more government involvement? No freakin way!

Now you might ask, Happy you are barely capable of using this blogs comments section why should I listen to you?

I had a job that required that I interface with people that knew their line of work, experts. Including some of the top computer people at the time. I asked questions and listened when they talked even when they were not talking to me.

I am not advocating more government. My little brother likes to say, "In a world where socialism works Anarchism would work better". Socialism didn't work the no government model has not been a success where it has been tried. And it has been tried.

I would like the least government possible. But the ideal Anarchist utopia. Not any more attainable than the fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean where Sir Thomas More's Utopia story took place. In my less than humble opinion. I could be wrong but no Anarchists are in a rush to go prove me so. That would require that they actually do something.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

I am sorry that I did not notice what I had started. I can not promise to respond to any further posts. That I had time today was a huge surprise to me.

Thanks, MALTHUS I'll give it a look.

Anonymous said...

"I suppose [industrial revolution prosperity] had nothing to do with the protection provided by the new patent system?"

No, it didn't. Unlike the European patent systems of the time, Jefferson designed the American patent system to be a research investment by taxpayers. The payoff to the taxpayers was to be an increase in the number of useful inventions in the public domain. Like the other governmental systems Jefferson designed, the patent system failed. Only big companies can use the patent system, and benefiting the small inventor is a total myth. Talk to a patent attorney, and you'll find it takes a minimum of a million dollars to bring a patent lawsuit, accusing or defending.

Besides, taking from the big at gunpoint and giving to the small is Communism. Even if the patent system worked it would be evil.

"It never ceases to annoy me that the same Anarchists that call the patent system a legally enforced monopoly demand their copyrights protected."

Let's be a little more subtle here. Suppose one-size-doesn't-fit-all copyright goes away. Do you think movie studios will immediately release movies into the public domain, or will they ask theater goes to agree to some terms? But then what is a theater doing, exactly? They are selling moviegoers the service of leaving with a poor copy of the movie in their heads. Saying that Disney still has total control of Micky Mouse after however many decades of copying it into people's minds is also bogus. I don't know what terms movies and software will settle out with in a free world. But it won't be zero, and it won't be copyright as currently exists. Furthermore, there is no requirement that a copyright contract be enforced by a police-and-courts monopolist. Enforcement requires force, but it does not require a monopoly on force. No government is needed.

"Just try calling yourself an engineer without the certifications."

I'm talking about the computer industry, not bridge construction. There is no legal requirement that chip designers or silicon physics researchers have a government license.

"Ever wonder why a virus free p.c. crashes for no reason?"

I have wondered why customers have been satisfied with this level of quality for 25 years. Microsoft sold a Unix product called Xenix in the 1970's, so they can't claim ignorance of better computing practices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

Happy D said...

Once again Anon you don't know what you are talking about.
Entire books and academic carriers have been spent on the discussion of the Industrial revolution and its relation to the patent systems. Dr Christine Macleod's seminar given on 16th November 2004 at the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, St. Peter s College, Oxford ; Is considered by some the gold standard on the subject. I have never heard it myself or tried to find a copy. But it was recommended by a historian friend with more than a passing interest in this matter.
Here are a few books on the matter.
Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660-1800 by Christine Macleod
The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790-1920 by B. Zorina Khan
The patent system and inventive activity during the Industrial Revolution by H. I. Dutton
"Only big companies can use the patent system, and benefiting the small inventor is a total myth. Talk to a patent attorney, and you'll find it takes a minimum of a million dollars to bring a patent lawsuit, accusing or defending."
I do talk to patent attorneys, often the first one I showed your post to called your statement patent nonsense. He did not intend the pun but I do. The second was not so kind. She did tell me where the million dollars to bring a patent lawsuit lie came from. A few years ago it was calculated that one million dollars was the average price to bring a patent infringement case. Average not minimum you pay less I pay more divide by two equals average. It was then spread far and wide by among others patent attorneys who were in the employ of major intellectual property violators. Also useful fools who didn't look into the source very far if at all.

Just among the people I know ten who hold patents only three of which work for the big companies. Of the others three would be what you would term small inventors. One lives on royalties the other two also do other things one is a teacher. Of this whole group of people only one [not one of the full time inventors] has gotten in an lawsuit with a big company it was settled for an undisclosed sum. Judging by the Rolls Royce and early retirement for a lot of money. Now I do move in circles where inventors, engineers, and designers are common.

The fact that an entire profession called patent attorney exists might have led you to consider that more than big companies need the service. So I guess that it is not just the big companies.

There are many ways to get around a patent without violating it or breaking the law and still holding the moral high ground. Why a big company still steals someone's work is something I do not understand. Once someone proves that it can be done it can usually be done another way. A company with a half decent R&D department has no excuse. The movie Flash of Genius tells the story of one of these small inventors that you say is a total myth. He did have to spend years and lots of sweat equity to get justice, sadly.

continued

Happy D said...

"Unlike the European patent systems of the time, Jefferson designed the American patent system to be a research investment by taxpayers. The payoff to the taxpayers was to be an increase in the number of useful inventions in the public domain."

So your counter argument to my Government is not the root of all evil and does some few very limited good, position. Is to shore up the does some very limited good part? Interesting gambit. Oh and the European patent systems not all bad not all good either.

You claim that Jefferson's patent system failed. If that were true we would not be communicating by this method and absolutely not with this level of advancement. Patents have done more for computer hardware than I have time to go through. Some of this is covered in my previous posts. You could actually read them instead of skimming them.

Let me give you some advice if you should ever get a patent. First license it to manufacturers this opens more options on enforcement. Second keep records every bit of correspondence with potential manufacturers a log of phone calls anything you can think of if it goes to court you will need it.

Hey how about you look up the word Communism? Your gross over simplification of the issue is not worth the two sentences I have wasted on it in response.

One would have thought that you could have picked up on my dislike of the copyright system. Particularly corporations having control of something forever. But your idea? I do not think you are insane or stupid. So think how this would act as a disincentive to create anything from a painting to a movie.
I am not a big fan of a government monopoly on force either. But no government? Hey feel free to prove the idea just don't try to use me as one of the Guinea pigs.

Your original statement was "The sum total of government licenses, educational certifications, and guild approvals legally required to be a programmer today is: zero."

Now I will concede that there is no legal requirement to get a license to engineer chips. But try to get a job without the educational certifications, and "guild" approvals. Two criminal charges you might face are false advertising and fraud. You would be guilty too. Design is different from engineering. As for a silicon physics researcher go ahead advertise yourself as one without the educational certifications, and "guild" approvals. And have fun with Bubba at the gray bar motel.

"I have wondered why customers have been satisfied with this level of quality for 25 years"

If you had read that Wikipedia article you linked to you would have had part of the answer. 8th paragraph. "When Microsoft entered into an agreement with IBM to develop Os/2, it lost interest in promoting Xenix."
The other part of the equation is the same reason you are most likely typing on a QWERTY keyboard Microsoft got there first.
Oh and Unix systems are vulnerable to sloppy code too.

Catch you in future posts Anon.