Today we just reviewed the class, so in this blog I suppose I’ll review the class. I enjoyed myself, which I did not expect to happen at the start of the semester. This is my 3rd attempt at passing History 390 for my Gen Ed credit, and it’s certainly been my most enjoyable. I knew nothing about music or music history going into the class which originally made me very nervous, and I am happy with the tidbits I’m taking away. I got to listen to some okay songs, and I have a bigger appreciation for the culturally and racially mixed history of American music. The less culturally focused parts, more about technology, drew less enthusiasm.

The class was wholly unorganized, and I never knew what new topic or angle to expect when walking into class. But to be honest it made it more interesting. I considered it less a class about music and more a class about eclectic topics. I learned early on that there would be a complex philosophical or historical questions raised that would genuinely give me something to think about the rest of the day. Not knowing what could be raised made it more likely that I’d show up to find out.

Overall I’d give the course a B and the teaching an A-.

The first part of class was a review of what we’ve learned on cultural mixing; that while the races in America were politically segregated, their cultures (specifically music) were constantly becoming intertwined and co-influenced. The example used was Thomas Dorsey and Tommy Dorsey, two musicians with the same name. The former was black and the latter was white, but they were both aware of each other and had a separate impact.

Then the class took a sharp turn and we discussed different aspects of Marxism. Quote, “Labor has been rendered irrelevant.” As craftsman have become obsolete and production of goods We talked about the labor theory of value, a wholly incorrect economic theory. And then we jumped into Marxist “false consciousness,” the idea that if you’re not a Marxist you’re just brainwashed by the class structure! It was an easy way for academics to try to grasp why the working man didn’t like their disdainful gaze.

Today we learned about Dan Emmett and the first minstrel show, the Snowden family, and the disputed authorship of “Dixie” along with other tunes (I found the “Genuine Negro Jig” to be very enrapturing). And O’Malley claimed that creativity demands limits; people do they’re best work when they’re given freedom to color within the lines, so to speak. I completely agree with him. I do my best when I’m asked about a specific thing, or asked to do a specific thing, and being required to think of something very broad or out of the blue.

Today we just talked about using GarageBand and what was required on our final paper, so I have nothing to blog on.

A lot was covered in today’s class, so I’ll try to hit on as many points as I can.

We discussed the opposing visions of American from Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton envisioned the U.S. as a growing industrial republic, where workers earned a wage and populated urban centers. Meanwhile Jefferson envisioned the U.S. as an agricultural republic, dominated by independent yeomen farmers. On almost all things I agree with Jefferson, from trade, to central power, to banking. But on this, while I certainly appreciate his grand vision and even sympathize with his motivations, I think he was too hostile to the burgeoning modern economy. Jefferson imagined that small farmers, as self-sufficient land owners, would be best able to resist a tyrannical state. I think he undervalued what the wage earner is capable of. And of course he possessed the bias against “wage slavery,” common to aristocrats. And I absolutely disagree with his centrally planned divisions of western territory. Property lines should be decided by the first arrivals, that best adhere to the local terrain and the needs of the land. But he was still correct in wanting people to populate the land and sell it for cheap (even free), unlike Hamilton who wanted to make it expensive to raise tax money.

From there Professor O’Malley put forth a proposition: “The more individual you are, the less free you are.” There’s a lot to dissect there. He went on to say that technology is hurting the nation in favor of the community and the local, that diversity is consciously choosing stuff you don’t like. Individualism is the destruction of the nation.

Overall, I think I agree with his sentiment, although I’d use different terms and I come at it from a different vantage point. I do agree that radical individualism does mean the destruction of not just the nation, but the society around the individual. Identity is historically group-driven. I identify with X, I’m a member of Y, I’m a part of Z. But when the individual, ripped of all context is able to radically alter themselves put only their interests first, you have the breakdown of social order. Social conservatives would associate this new individualism with the loss of the family unit, dissolution of traditional sexual norms, the acceptance of transgenderism, the denial of race as a concept, etc.

In a previous blog post I described the existence of the historic American nation. I stand by that, broadly speaking. But I think it’s more accurate, certainly in this day and age, to describe the United States as an amalgam of nations. There’s similarity between the West Coast, New England, Deep South, and Heartland, sure, but there’s also a world of difference. As someone who respects cultural diversity between different peoples and areas, and someone who politically favors massive decentralization, I’m fully in favor of the U.S. dissolving in multiple, separate nations. I think a mutual divorce is best for everyone.

Technology, specifically the ability for a person to use a personal device to access the internet and communicate with the world, has certainly increased individualism. What’s interesting is O’Malley claims it’s been to the detriment of the nation and large things, and a boon to the local and small things. Social conservatives make the complete opposite case. I think they’re both right in a way, just talking past each other. Social conservatives place a heavy emphasis on the community–family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc. This is very place-based. Community for conservatives is a rooted spot; a people must have a land. The ability of individuals to talk to people around the world, not the people near to them, destroys familiar ties and withers a sense of community. Whereas O’Malley says that the ability for individuals to seek other people with similar interests builds community. You no longer have to be near someone; you can seek out the like-minded, and build new communities from that. It improves the local, while making the nation, referring I believe to the physical people around you, obsolete. I think O’Malley predicts that this coming together of similar people will eventually lead to physical communities, not just online, but I’m not entirely sure.

Finally, on tackling O’Malley’s Law, I think he’s drawing on a point that has long been accepted in conservative circles. On the right it’s normal to view society in layers, with the state on top, and the individual on the bottom. In between are what’s viewed as societal organizations that group and protect individuals; these include clubs, the church, family, private associations, etc. As those middling items deteriorate or shrink, soon it just becomes the individual under the state. As what was previously called “the local” goes extinct, state power increases at the individual’s expense. The thought process boils down to radical individualism —> increased state power. So I think O’Malley stumbled on something more “traditional” than he thinks.

Finally, let me just say that I rarely use the term “freedom.” I think it’s easily abused, and its easy to mix freedom from and freedom to. I think “liberty,” for my purposes, is more suited. It’s more difficult to twist, and is interpreted by most people to refer to negative rights, not positive rights.

After going over auditory masking, the day focused on the musicians behind the music we listen to.

I’m in the small minority, buy I still buy all of my music on iTunes. I don’t use Spotify or any of the other music sharing subscriptions. While I don’t think I have a moral obligation to purchase the music, I like knowing that I’m supporting musicians that I like. I feel good knowing I’m doing my part (and it adds to my argument that even without requiring purchase musicians would still receive some compensation from people who feel the way I do). And my musical needs aren’t as large as other people’s. I don’t just pop on any genre and listen, and I rarely buy entire albums. Typically I purchase single songs, very specific ones I want to have and listen to. That makes spending a dollar or two on iTunes every couple weeks pretty easy without taking a big hit at the bank. The increase of music sharing definitely means its almost impossible for most bands to be financially viable on their music alone. I don’t really feel bad about that. The average musician has never made a lot of money. I figure they never will.

In response to the question of whether or not there is objectively good vs bad music, I’m going to stick to the point I made in the class. If music is organized noise, then good music could maybe be described as more organized than other sounds. It’s broad, but it’s helpful (I think). And just as an individual I think you can pick out good vs bad music, which makes sense because over the past few months since starting this class I’ve realized more and more that I am an idealist , which was one of the first questions asked this semester.

This class continued the previous one’s focus on funk music, and we were introduced to James Brown and his focus on the first beat. There are beats in music, and apparently its traditional for a lot of music to focus on certain beats. James Brown changed the game by putting the focus on the first beat, to really hit you, which was considered new and unorthodox. That was the last bit of information I understood. The rest of the class was about sound waves and the sort of nitty-gritty that goes wholly over my head. I can’t say what part I didn’t get because I didn’t even understand what I didn’t understand.

Today’s class was about sampling. I don’t have too much to report on. We learned about Chuck Berry’s famous “lick” and how it originated with Lester Young. We listened to George Clinton (previously I was only acquainted with the Vice President).

We ended with the question “Who owns a song?” Keeping with my last post, I think anyone can “own” a song. Anyone who sings it, performs it, thinks about it, buys it, etc all “own” it, without their ownership impacting anyone else’s. I think its entirely fair for for the original artist, or the person whose version is most famous, to be given credit for the song. But they do not have sole ownership over it, just like any other piece of information.

Today was the classes introduction to property rights, and how that leads into intellectual property. I’ll explain my moral and logical foundation of property rights (which adheres to what was presented) and how that leads to my thoughts on IP, which diverges from what was presented.

Any idea of property must start with personhood, the self-evident idea of unimpeachable self-ownership. Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” proves this is self-evident. Every time I think I prove that I am (and therefore “own”) myself. Every time someone argues that they do not own themselves or that self-ownership is not a given, they are inherently contradicting their existence; by using their mouths and voices to share their thoughts, evidently from themselves, they admit ownership. You cannot argue against the idea without agreeing with it.

From this starting point, we place mankind in the world, each individual owning their minds, body, and labor. I own, or take responsibility for, my actions (or labor). The world, absent humanity, is unowned, it is untouched. The world is moved from its natural state to being property when, to quote John Locke, a person mixes their labor with it. That thing has gone from its natural state to being impacted, to being molded, by that individuals creativity and labor. When I plant and tend to a tree, when I cut it down, when I build a fence, when I clear a brush etc I am bringing what was once natural into a new state of being; that of something owned. And logically it must be owned by the first person; anything else would be arbitrary. And individual ownership over individual things is the only idea of ownership that comforts with humanity’s natural need to survive (as opposed to everyone owning an equal percentage of everything e.g. I am 1/7,000,000,000% owner of a farm in Bangladesh, which would lead to extinction for lack of agreement).

In the real world its fairly easy to decide when something goes from its natural state to being owned. I can fence off a field and claim it; I cannot fence around someone else and forbid them from going to unowned land. I cannot climb over a mountain range and claim the entire valley below or to an entire island I happen to set foot on. I cannot just see a thing and claim it, I must work it, bend it to my needs with my labor.

This property, now owned, is as rightfully mine as my own body. It’s all property, and its all an extension of that first, immutable right. All rights are property rights. As the owner of something, I’m free to sell it, lease it, defend it, destroy it, gift it, or leave it as inheritance. The receiver of whatever voluntary transaction I agree to now has just as much right to ownership as that first owner who brought it from its natural state. Any involuntary transaction, e.g. theft, is a crime as it violates the natural right of ownership. It violates the nature of man. That is the definition of morality; recognizing property as the sole natural right, and acknowledging that the initiation of violence (murder, theft, rape, fraud) is inherently and always immoral and evil. This can be summarized as the non-aggression principle (NAP).

From this establishment of property rights, we go down the path of “intellectual property,” the proposition that just as someone can own a physical thing, they can own an idea or information. I disagree with this interpretation. The first law of economics is the acceptance that resources are scarce. This scarcity requires the use of strict property enforcement for utilitarian reasons, excluding the moral basis I’ve just laid out. On the other hand, ideas, words, etc, are ethereal. They do not exist in the physical word and scarcity does not apply to them. The same idea can be shared with every person on earth, and that does not diminish the idea in the mind of the original thinker. Since there is no scarcity, there doesn’t need to be property. It’s a kind of socialism of the mind. For example, let’s say you design a new kind of bicycle and I see you riding it. I like it, and I go home to my garage and over the week remake your bicycle; an exact replica. You then see me riding it, and have me arrested. You claim I stole your bike. But I didn’t. You still own the original bicycle. I have not touched your physical property. No harm has been done to you by the fact that your idea has been used by another. If your property has been harmed, there has been no crime. If I, say, take Nicholas Carr’s book The Shallows, and I reprint it with my name over it and the claim I wrote it, then certainly I am acting dishonestly. I should be rejected by polite society and thrown out of academic circles. I may be a “bad” person. But I contend that I committed no crime since I did not harm Carr’s physical property, only words that are manufacturable ad infinitum.

I do not believe in intellectual property; I think its inconsistent with the way information travels, its unnecessary, and it lacks the strict moral foundation that physical property finds in human nature.

Today I learned that the first issue of Encyclopedia Britannica was 28 volumes and contained 71,000 articles. I think that’s just amazing. Not only that there was so much knowledge physically laid out, but that people in the 18th century were able to collect that much, is nothing short of shocking to me as a modern.

We learned the the encyclopedia was the first use of what we’d call hypertext, text that leads you to other text on hand, etc. This connects directly with Wikipedia, our modern encyclopedia that surpassed its Britannica ancestor. You can read an article and click any hyperlink on a text that will take you to another page and it just goes on, seemingly, forever.

Wikipedia was used the perfect example of crowdsourcing, collecting information from a wide group of people who are able to edit and add freely. This idea is promoted by Richard Stallman, who believes that the more freely an idea is expressed, the better it gets. He helped popularize the “Four Freedoms of Software,” and for decades has fought any kind of user restrictions and copyright.

Lebra Office was given as an example of free, crowdsourced software, and I think Zotero (which I use) also fits into that mold. It’s an interesting, revolutionary idea, and from my minimal understanding of it, I support its continual success.