jaromil said: > it is therefore erroneous to talk about property when referring to
> intellect and libre economies.
I agree.
I used before the word 'intellectual property' because infact the common
misuse of the term rendered what i was talking about clear to the readers.
I think we should stop using the word 'property' in general.
But... Liberated?
Liberated from what?
Isn't this implying an ontological status of non-liberty attached to
anything which is not passing through the process of liberation?
Liberating a space can mean, for example, occupying it (ex squatting).
Still when a place is squatted it is subjected to a wide number of rules
that make the 'liberty' an area embedded in a bunch of, sometimes very
strict, restrictions. Can restriction be a status of pure liberation?
Another thought: after the second world war, when the U$A came to occupy
Italy, making alliances with the Big Mafia and the xstians, they called
themselves the liberators.
That's why they were flying over the country throwing chocolate and
sigarettes on people's head, to liberate them.
Liberate them from anything that was not their bloody capitalistic market.
